
Qass^ 



Book- r5hi 



/ 



PROVINCIAL. LETTERS, 



CONTAIKING 






-/ 



an SrjJOfiiurr 



HEASONING AND MORALS OF THE JESUITS. 

BY 

BLAISE PASCAL. 

QRIGIN'ALLY PUBLISHED UNDER THE NAME OF 

LOUIS I3E MONTALTE. 



TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH^--'— ~:^-"--.. 

TO WHICH IS ADDED, 



THE LA TE BULL FOR THE REVIVAL OF THE ORDER IN EUROPE, 



The biskop of Lucon, sou of the celebrated Bussy, told me, that asking one day 
tke bishop of Meaux what work lie would covet most to be the author of, supposing 
his own performances set aside, Bossuet replied. The. Provincial Letters. . Exaia- 
ple« of all tke species of eloquence abaund in them. — Voltaibe, 



WASHINGTON: .; 

PUBLISHED BY JAMES TURNER, 
1831. 



^. 



a^""^^ 



^■t 



TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 



"The name df Pascax (that prodigy of parts, as Leckc 
calls him,") says Mr. Diigald Stewaiit,=^ *'is more fami- 
liar to modern ears than that of any of the other learned and 
polished anchorites who have rendered thesanctuary of /'ori- 
Royal so illustrious. Abstracting from his great merit in 
mathematics and in physics, his reputation rests chiefly on 
the ^Provincial Letters^ a work from which Voltaire, not- 
withstanding his strong prejudices againstthe Author, dates 
the fxation of the French language; and of which the same 
excellent judge has said, ^Moliere's :Best comedies do 

S^OT EXCEI. them in WIT, KOR THE COMPOSITIONS OF 

BossuET IN SUBLIMITY." Thc author w^as originally in- 
duced to compose and publish them by a very casual cir- 
cumstance. Accustomed frequently to visit a sister, who 
had taken the veil in the monastery of Port-Royal, he was 
introduced to the society of some celebrated Jansenists, par- 
ticularly M. Arnauld, who had recently been engaged in a 
dispute with the doctol's of the Sorbonne. The subjects of 
difference related chiefly to those points of faith which have 
continually divided Arminians and Calvinists in the Pro- 
testant community; the Jesuits being allied in sentiment to 
the former, and the Jansenists to the latter. The Jesuits had 
selected five propositions from a posthumous work of Jansen 
or Jansenius, bishop of Yprcs, which his adherents believed 
to contain the doctrine of the Scriptures and the Fathers 
on the litigated articles of faith, and procured their con- 
demnation by the Faculty of Theology at Paris and by Pope 
Innocent X. Arnauld published a letter in 1655, in which 
he declared that the condemned propositions were not to be 

• Supplemerit to Encye. Brit, vol. i. p. 1. 



found in the book of Jansenius, and then proceeded to corr- 
travert the Jesuitical notion of efficacious grace. Being 
at this time a member of the Sorbonne, violent altercations 
arose; and as his adversaries were in power, tliey procured 
Ms expulsion from the Faculty of Theology, by a decree iiT 
January 165G. The defence wliich he made was not in it- 
self very satisfactorily written, and some of his friends in- 
timated their wish to M. Pascal, with whom they had be- 
come recently acquainted, and of whose talents they had 
formed a very just idea, that he would write something up- 
on the subject. This occasioned his first letter, which be- 
ing much admired, was soon succeeded hj others, under 
the fictitious name of Louis de Montalte; the consequence 
was, the Jesuits became the objects of ridicule and contempt 
to all Europe. 

It is quite needless to accumulate testimonies m favor of 
tUe extraordinary merit of this work otherwise the enco- 
miums of numerous French writers might be introduced; 
and our elegant Gibbon is said to have possessed so en- 
thusiastic an admiration for the book, that he was accus- 
tomed to read it through ance every year. Amongst those 
however, who are alwaysentitled to marked attention, must 
be ranked d'Alembert, whose words are as follow: '^*Thi>s 
master-piece of pleasantry and eloquence diverted and mo- 
ved the indignation of all Europe at tlieir (the Jesuits*^) ex- 
pense. In vain they replied that the greatest part of the 
Theologists and Monks Jiad tauglit, as well as them, tlie 
scandalous doctrine with which they were reproached, — 
Their answers, ill written and full of gall, were not ready 
while every body knew the * Provincial Letters'^ by heart. 
This work is so much tlie more admirable, as Pascal, in 
composing it, appears to have theologized two things which- 
seemed not made for the theology of that time — language 
ami pleasantry. The (French) language was \ery far 
from being formed, as we may judge by the greater part of 
the works published at tijat time, and of which it is impos- 
sible to endure tiie readinir. In the 'Provincial Letters^" 






TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. 



there is not a single word that is grown obsolete; and that 
book, though written above a hundred years ago, seems as if 
it had been written but yesterday. 

'^Another attempt, no less difficult, was to make people 
of wit, and good people, laugh at the questions oi siifficient 
grace and nextpoiver, and the decisions of the casuists — sub- 
jects very little favourable to pleasantry, or, which is 
worse still, susceptible of pleasantries that are cold and 
uniform, and capable, at most,'of amusing only priests and 
monks. It was necessary, to avoid this rock, to have a deli- 
cacy of taste so much the greater, as Pascal lived very re- 
tired, and far removed from the commerce of the world — 
He could never have distinguished, but by the superiority 
and delicacy of his understanding, the kind of pleasantry 
which could alone be relished by good judges in this dry 
and insipid matter. He succeeded in it beyond all expres- 
sion; several of his hon-mots liave even become prover- 
bial in our language, and the 'Provincial Letters' will be 
ever regarded as a model of taste and style." 

A considerable portion of the merit of this performance 
consists in the ingenious manner in which Pascal has 
brought together the extravagant maxims of the principal 
Jesuitical writers, so as to make them appear truly ridicu- 
lous. He does not, as Voltaire (who otherwise bestows up- 
on him great praise) insinuates, collect his citations from a 
few individuals, whose sentiments are unwarrantably ad- 
duced as a fair specimen of the principles of the whole 
society, for he uniformly appeals to the very best of their 
writers, and particularly to tiie txventy-four elder s, who 
were so designated on accoiuit of the entire confidence 
which the wliole body of tlie Jesuits reposed in their state- 
ments. In fact, Pascal adopted no other than the usual 
and authorised method of obtaining the real opinions of any 
extensive society. If their own publications — the publica- 
tions of their most eminent men — be not tlie proper stand- 
ard of appeal, by what other means can their opinions be 
obtained? Besides, noiie of their writings were issued with- 
out iha sanction of the superiors of their order. 



vi TRAXSLATOK^S PREFACE. 

One peculiarity of these *Letters,'it is impossible to per- 
ceive through the medium of a translation. The words se- 
lected by the writer are uniformly the purest which the lan- 
guage furnished! and, according to the testimony of Vol- 
taire, <*not a single word occurs, savouring of that vicis- 
situde to which living languages are so subject. Here 
then we may fix the epocha, when our language may be 
said to have assumed a settled form." The conversation- 
al form in which the subject is treated, precludes that ora- 
torical elegance and Ciceronian flow which delights the ear. 
A certain sprightliness and humour constitute their chief 
characteristics, interspersed with passages of grave in- 
struction, which prove that Pascal wrote for a higher pur- 
pose than to furnish a cx)medy, or to gratify a malignant 
feeling. After all, a severe critic might detect in this work 
some minor faults of composition, as redundancies and re- 
petitions, unless, as is most probable, even he should be too 
much occupied with its numerous beauties. 



CONTENTS 



LETTER I. 

Remarks on the Disputes of the Sorbonne, and on the Invention of the Term next 
POWER, employed by the Molinists to draw a Censure upon M. Arnauld, Page 1 

^ LETTER IL 

On the subject of sufficient Grace, . . . . . .11 

Reply of the Provincial to the two former Letters of his Friend . . 21 

LETTER in. 

The Injustice, Absurdity, and Nullity of the Censure upon M. Amauld, . 23 

LETTER IV. 
Of acttuil Grace, and of Sins qf Ignorance, ..... 31 

LETTER V. 

I%fi Design of the Jesuits in establishing a new Morality^. Two kinds of Casuists 
amongst them: the great Remissness of the one, and the equal Rigidity of the other. 
Reason of this Difference. Explanation of the Doctrine of Probability. A Crowd 
of modern and obscure Authors substitutedfor the Holy Fathers, . . 44 

LETTER VI. 

The different Artifices of the Jesuits to evade the Authority qf the Gospel, the Coun- 
cils, and the Popes. Consequences which follow from their Doctrine of Proba- 
bility. Their Abatements in favour of the Clergy, Monks, and Servants. Histo- 
ry of John d'Alba, ........ 58 

LETTER VII. 

On the Method of directing the Attention. The Permission to kill in defence of 

Honour and of Property, which is extended to Priests and Friars. A curious 

Question proposed by Caramuel, namely, whether the Jesuits may kill the Jansen- 

ists? ......... 79 

LETTER VIII. 
Corrupt Maxims of the Casuists respecting Judges, Usurers, the Contract Moha- 
tra, Bankrupts, Restitutions, ^c— Various other extravagant Notions, . 87 



VIU ( ONTKNTS. 

LETTER IX. 

The false JVorship of the Virgin Mary which the Jesuits have introduced. The 
various Facilities they have invented to procure Salvation without any IVoubleand 
amidst the Indulgences of Life. Their maxims respecting Ambition, Envy, Glut- 
tony, Equivocation, mental Reservations, the Liberty which young Females enjoy, 
the Habits of Women, Gaming, and the Manner of hearing Mass, . 103 

LETTER X. 

Mitigating Expedients of the Jesuits with regard to the Sacrament of Penitence. 
Their Maxims respecting Confession, Satisfaction, Absolution, Occasions of Sin, 
Contrition, and the Love of God, . . . . - . 118 

LETTER XL 

Ridiculous Errors may be refuted by Raillery. The Precautions it is necesshry to 
use, which the Author has observed, but which have not been regarded by the Je- 
suits. The impious Buffooneries of Fathers le Moine and Garasse, - 135 

LETTER XIL 
Refutation of the Quirks and Turns of the Jesuits on the Subjects of Almsgiving 
and Simony, . . . . ... . . 151 

Refutation of the Reply of the Jesuits to the last Letter , . ,, . 167 

LETTER XIIL 

The doctrine of Lessius respecting Murder the same with that of Victcrria. The 
Ease with which we pass from Speculation to Practice. Reason why the Jestiits 
makeuse of this vain Distinction, and how unavailing it is to their Justification 182 

LETTER XIV. 
Jesuitical Maxims on the subject of Homicide refuted by tfie holy Fathers. Reply, 
in passing, to some of their Calumnies, and a Comparison of their Doctrine with 
the Form observed in pronouncing Judgment in Ci-iminal Cases, . 198 

LETTER XV. 
The Jesuits omit Calumny in their Catalogue of Crimes, and mxike no Scruple of 
using it against their Enemies, ...... 214 

LETTER XVI. 

The horrible Calumnies of the Jesuits againstpious Ecclesiastics and holy Monks 231 
LETTER XVII. 

By the unanimous Consent of all the Divines, and partictdarly of the Jesuits, the 
Authority of the Popes and of (Ecumenical Councils is not infallible in Ques- 
tions of Fact, ....,-•• 254 

LETTER XVIII. 
Evidence still inore incontestable adduced even from Father Annat's Reply, that no 
Heresy exists in the Church. Every body condemns the Doctrine which the Jesuits 
impute to Jansenius; and thus all Christians agree on the Subject of the Five 
Propositions. Difference respecting the Questions of Right and Fact pointed 
out. With regard to the kilter, one ought to rely more upon our oivn Senses than 
v/pon any human Authority, • ^'^ 



I 



A VIEW 



OF THE 



HISTORY OF THE JESUITS, 



A SOCIETY which, at one period, extended its infliience to the 
very ends of the earth, and proved the main pillar of the papal 
hierarchy, which not only wormed itself into almost absolute 
power, occupying the high places, and leading captive the 
ecclesiastical dictator of the world, must be an object of some cu- 
riosity to the inquisitive mind, especially as it has been recently 
restored by the present pope, from that ruin to which Clement 
XIV. had reduced it. 

Ignatius Loyola, a native of Biscay, is well known to have 
been the founder of this nominally religious order. He was born 
in 1491, and became the first page to Ferdinand V. king of 
Spain, then an officer in his army. In 1521 he was wound- 
ed in both legs at the siege of Pampeluna, when having had 
leisure to study a 'Life of the Saints,' he devoted himself to the 
service of the Virgin; and his military ardour becoming metamor- 
phosed into superstitious zeal, he went on a pilgrimage into the 
Holy Land. Upon his return to Europe, he studied in the uni- 
versities of Spain, whence he removed into France, and formed 
a plan for the institution of this new order, which he presented 
to the pope. But, notwithstanding the high pretensions of Lo- 
yola to inspiration^ Paul III. refused his request, till his scruples 
were removed by an irresistible argument addressed to his self- 



X A VIEW OF THE 

interest: it was proposed that every member should make a vow 
of unconditional obedience to the pope, without requiring any 
support from t*he Holy See. The order was therefore instituted in 
1540, and Loyola appointed to be the first General. 

The plan of the Society was completed by the two immediate 
successors of the founder, Lainez and Aquaviva, both of whom 
excelled their master in ability and the science of government; 
and, in a few years, the Society established itself in every Ca- 
tholic country, acquiring prodigious wealth, and exciting the ap- 
prehensions of all the enemies of the Romish laith. 

To Lainez are ascribed the Secreta Monita, or secret instruc- 
tions of the order, which wer« first discovered, on Christian, 
duke of Brunswick, seizing the Jesuits' college at Parderborn, in 
Westphalia, when he gave their books and manuscripts to the 
capuchins, who found these secret instructions among the ar- 
chives of their rector. After this, another copy was detected at 
Prague in the college of the Jesuits. 

The Jesuits are taught to consider themselves as formed for ac- 
tion, in opposition to the monastic orders, who retire from the 
concerns of the world; and engaging in all civil and commercial 
transactions, insinuating themselves into the friendship of persons 
of rank, studying the disposition of all classes with a view of ob- 
taining an influence over them, and undertaking missions to dis- 
tant nations, it is an essential principle of their policy by every 
means to extend the Catholic faith. No labour is spared, no in- 
trigue omitted that may prove conducive to this purpose. 

The constitution of this Society is monarchical, A General is 
chosen for life by deputies from the several provinces, whose 
power is supreme and universal. Every member is at his entire 
disposal, who is required to submit his will and sentiments to his 
dictation, and to listen to his injunctions, as if uttered by Christ 
himself. The fortune, person, and conscience of the whole Society 
are at his disposal, and he can dispense his order not only from 
the vows of poverty, chastity, and monastic obedience, but even 
from submission to the pope whenever he pleases. He nomi- 
nates and removes provincials, rectors, professors, and all officers 
of the order, superintends the universities, houses, and missions, 
decides controversies, and forms or dissolves contracts. No mem* 



HISTORY OF THH JESUITS. X| 

ber can have any opinion of his own; and the Society has it« 
prisons, independent of the secular authority. 

There are four classes of members, — the noviciates or proba- 
tioners, the approved disciples, the coadjutors, and the professors 
of the four vows. The education of youth was always consider- 
ed by them as their peculiar province, aware of the influence 
which such a measure would infallibly secure over another gen- 
eration: and before the conclusion of the sixteenth century, the 
Jesuits had obtained the chief direction of the youthful mind in 
every Catholic country in Europe. They had become the con- 
fessors of almost all its monarchs, and the spiritual guides of near- 
ly every person distinguished for rank or influence. At different 
periods they obtained the direction of the most considerable 
courts, and took part in every intrigue and revolution. 

Notwithstanding their vow of poverty, they accumulated, upon 
various pretences, immense wealth. They claimed exemptionr 
from tithes under a bull of Gregory XIII. who was devoted to* 
their interests; and, by obtaining a special license from the court 
of Rome to trade with the nations whom they professed to con- 
vert, they carried on a lucrative commerce in the East and West 
Indies; formed settlements in different countries, and acquired pos- 
session of a large province in South America, where they reign- 
ed as sovereigns over some hundred thousand subjects. 

Their policy is uniformly to inculcate attachment to the order,. 
and by a pliant morality to soothe and gratify the passions of 
mankind, for the purpose of securing their patronage. They 
proclaim the duty ' of opposing princes who are inimical to the 
Catholic faith, and have employed every weapon, every artful 
and every intolerant measure, to resist the progress of Protestant- 
ism. 

In Portugal, where the Jesuits were first received, they ob- 
tained the direction of the court, which for many years delivered 
to them the consciences of its princes and the education of the 
people. Portugal opened the door to their missions, and gave 
them establishments in Asia, Africa, and America. They usurp- 
ed the sovereignty of Paraguay, and resisted the forces of Portu- 
gal and Spain, who claimed it. The court of Lisbon, and even 
Rome herself, protested in vain against their excesses. The 
league in France was, in reality, a conspiracy of the Jesuits un- 



Xl» \ A VIEW or THE 

der the sanction of Sixtns V. to disturb the guccession to the 
throne of France. The Jesuits' college at Paris, was the grand 
focus of the seditious and treasons which then agitated the state, 
and the ruler of the Jesuits was president of the Council of Six- 
teen, which gave the impulse to the leagues formed there and 
throughout France. Matthieu, a Jesuit and confessor of Henry 
III. was called 'The Courier of the League,' on account of hi» 
frequent journies to and from Rome at that disastrous period. 

In Germany the Society appropriated the richest benefices, 
particularly those of the monasteries of St. Benedict and St. Ber- 
nard. Catharine of Austria confided in them, and was supplant- 
ed; and loud outcries were uttered against them by the sufferers 
in Vienna, in the states of Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, and else- 
where. Their cruelties in Poland will never be forgotten. They 
were expelled from Abyssinia, Japan, Malta, Cochin, Moscow, 
Venice, and other places, for their gross misconduct; and in Amer- 
ica and Asia they carried devastation and blood wherever they 
went. The great object of the persecution of the Protestants in 
Savoy was the confiscation of their property, in order to endow the 
colleges of the Jesuits. They had, no doubt, a share in the atro- 
cities of the duke of Alva in the Low Countries. They boasted 
of the friendship of Catherine de Medicis, who espoused their 
cause, and under whose influence the massacre of St. Bartholo- 
mew was executed. Louis XIV. had three Jesuit confessors, 
which may explain the revocation of the edict of Nantz. 

The Jesuits have been notorious for attempting the lives of 
princes. The reign of queen Elizabeth presents a succession of 
plots. In her proclamation, dated Nov. 15, 1602, she says, 
that "the Jesuits had fomented the plots against her person, ex- 
cited her subjects to revolt, provoked foreign princes to com- 
pass her death, engaged in all affairs of state, and by their lan- 
guage and writings, had undertaken to dispose of her crown." 

Lucius enumerates five conspiracies of the Jesuits against 
James I. before he had reigned a year. They contrived the 
gunpowder plot. So late as the time of George I. both houses 
of parliament reported, that the evidence examined by them on 
the conspiracy of Plunket and Layer had satisfactorily shown 
that it had for its object the destruction of the king, the subter- 
sion of the laws, and the crowning of the popish Pretender, and 



HISTORY OF THE JESUITS. XUl 

they state, that "Plunket was born in Dublin, ani bred up at the 
Jesuits' college at Vienna." Henry III. of France was assassina- 
ted by Clement, a Jesuit, in 1589. The Jesuits murdered Wil- 
liam, prince of Orange, in 1584. They attempted the life of 
Louis XV. for imposing silence on the polemics of their order, 
besides innumerable other atrocities. 

The pernicious ipirit aud constitution of this order, rendered 
it early detested by the principal powers of Europe; and while 
Pascal, by his 'Provincial Letters,' exposed the morality of the 
Society, and thus overthrew their influence over the multitude, 
different potentates concurred, from time to time, to destroy or 
prevent its establishments. Charles V. opposed the order in hit 
dominions: it was expelled in England by the proclamation of 
James I. in 1604: in Venice, in 1606; in Portugal, in 1759; in 
France, in 1764; in Spain and Sicily, in 1767, and suppressed 
and abolished by pope Clement XIV. in 1775. Recently, how- 
ever, the pope has dared to re-establish it, though Clement had 
acted on the entreaties of even Catholic sovereigns, who deem- 
ed it incompatible with the existence of civil society. It must 
be acknowledged, indeed, to be a fit instrument for ecclesiastical 
despotism, and may therefore be regarded with indifference by- 
all who are unconcerned to secure the liberties of their fellow 
men; but those who feel as men and think like Christians, will 
read the following Bull for the revival of the order of the Je- 
suits, with no ordinary sensations. 



XI r A VIEW OF THE 



''Pius, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God. 
"(Ad perpetuam rei memoriam.) 

"The care of all the churches confided to our humility by the Divine will, not- 
withstanding the lowness of our deserts and abilities, makes it our duty to employ 
all the aids in our power, and which are furnished to us by the mercy of Divine 
Providence, in order that we may be able, as far as the changes of times and places 
will allow, to relieve the spiritual wants of the Catholic world, without any distinc- 
tion of people and nations. 

*' Wishing to fulfil this duty of our apostolic ministry, as soon as Francis Kareu 
(then living) and other secular priests, resident for many years in the vast em- 
pire of Russia, and who had been members of the company of Jesus suppressed by 
Clement XIV. of happy memory, had supplicated our permission to unite in a bo- 
dy, for the purpose of being able to apply themselves more easily, in conformity 
with their institution, to the instruction of youth in religion and good morals, to de- 
vote themselves to preaching, to confession, and the administration of the other sa- 
craments, we felt it our duty the more willingly to comply with their prayer, in- 
asmuch as the then reigning Emperor Paul I. had recommended the said priests ia 
his gracious dispatch, dated August 11, 1800, in which, after setting forth his spe- 
cial regard for them, he declared to us that it would be agreeble to him to see the 
company of Jesus established in his empire, under our authority: and we, on our 
side, considered attentively the great advantages which these vast regions might 
thence derive; considering how useful .those ecclesiastics, whose morals and learn- 
ing were equally tried, would be to the Catholic religion, thought fit to second the 
wish of so great and beneficent a prince. 

**In consequence, by our brief, dated March 7, 1801, we granted to the said Fran- 
cis Kareu, and his colleagues residing in Russia, or who should repair thither from 
other countries, power to form themselves into a body or congregation of the com- 
pany of Jesus; they are at liberty to xmite in one or more houses, to be pointed out 
by their superior, provided these houses are situated within the Russian empire. — 
We named the said Francis Kareu, general of the said congregation; we authorized 
them to resume and follow the rule of St. Ignatius of Loyola, approved and con- 
firmed by the constitutions of Paul III. our predecessor, of happy memory, in or- 
der that the companions, in a religious union, might freely engage in the instructioa 
of youth in religion and good letters, direct seminaries and colleges, and with the 
consent of the ordinary, confess, preach the word of God, and administer the sa- 
craments. By the same brief we received the congregation of the company of Je- 
sus under our immediate protection and dependence, reserving to ourselves and our 
successors the prescription of every thing that might appear to us proper to consoli- 
date, to defend it, and to purge it from the abuses and corruption that might be 
therein introduced; and for this purpose we expressly abrogated such apostolical 
constitutions, statutes, privileges, and indulgences granted in contradiction to these 
concessions, especially the apostolic letters of Clement XIV. our predecessor^ 
which begin with the words, Dominus ac Redemptor noster, only in so far as they 



HI6T0UY OF THE JESUITS. XV 

are contrary to our brief, beginning, Catfwlicoe, and which was given only for the 
Russian empire 

"A short time after we had ordained the restoration of the order of Jesuits in 
Russia, we thought it our duty to grant the same favour to the kingdom of Sicily, 
on the warm request of our dear son in Jesus Christ, King Ferdinand, who beg- 
ged that the company of Jesus might be re-established in his dominions and states, 
as it was in Russia, from a conviction that, in these deplorable times, the Jesuits 
were instructors most capable of forming youth to Christian piety and the fear of 
God, which is the beginning of wisdom, and to instruct them in science and letters. 
The duty of our pastoral charge; leading us to second the pious wishes of these illus- 
trious monarchs, and having only in view the glory of God and the salvation of souls, 
we by our brief, beginning Per alias, and dated the 30th July, 1804, extended to 
the kingdom of the Two Cicilies, the same concessions which we had made for the 
Russian empire. 

" The Catholic icorW demands with unanimous voice, the re-establishment of the 
company of Jesus. We daily receive to this effect, the most pi-essing petitions 
from our venerable brethren, the archbishops and bishops, and the most distinguish- 
ed persons, especially since the abundant fruits which this company has produced 
m the above countries have been generally known. The dispersion even of the 
stones of the sanctuary in those recent calamities, (which it is better now to de- 
plore than to repeat;) the annihilation of the discipline of the regular orders, (the 
glory and support of religion and the Catholic Church, to the restoration of which, 
all our thoughts and cares are at present directed,) require that we should accede 
to a wish so just and general. 

"We should deem ourselves guilty of a great crime towards God, if, amidst 
these dangers of the Christian republic, we neglected the aids which the special 
providence of God has put at our disposal; and if, placed in the bark of Peter, 
tossed and assailed by continual storms, we refused to employ the vigorous and ex- 
perienced rowers who volunteer their services, in order to break the waves of a 
sea which threatens every moment shipwreck and death. Decided by motives so 
numerous and powerful, we have resolved to do now what we could have wished to 
have done at the commencement of our pontificate. After having by fervent 
prayers implored the Divine assistance, after having taken the advice and counsel of a 
great number of our venerable brothers, the cardinals of the holy Roman church, 
we have decreed, with full knowledge, in virtue of the plenitude of apostolic pow- 
er, and with perpetual validity, that all the concessions and powers granted by us 
solely to the Russian empire and the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, shall henceforth 
extend to all our ecclesiastical states, and also to all other states. We therefore con- 
cede and grant to our well-beloved son, Taddeo Barzozowski, at this time General 
of the company of Jesus, and to the other members of that company, lawfully dele- 
gated by him, all suitable and necessary powers, in order that the said states may 
freely and lawfully receive all those who shall wish to be admitted into the regular 
order of the company of Jesus, who, under the authority of the General ad interim, 
shall be admitted and distributed, according to opportunity, in one or more bouses, 
one or more colleges, and one or more provinces, where they shall conform their 
mode of life to the rules prescribed by St. Ignatius of Loyola, approved and con- 
firmed by the constitutions of Paul III. We declare besides, and grant power 
that they may freely and lawfully apply to the education of youth in the principles 
of the Catholic faith, to form them to good morals, and to direct colleges and sem- 
inaries; we authorize them to hear confessions, to preach the word of God, and to 



\V1 A VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE JESUITS. 

administer the sacraments in the places of their residence, with the consent and 
approbation of the ordinary. We take under our tutelage, under our immediate 
obedience, and that of the Holy See, all the colleges, houses, provinces, and mem- 
bers of this order, and all those who shall join it; always reserving to ourselves, 
and the Roman pontiffs our successors, to prescribe and direct all that we may 
deem it our duty to prescribe and direct, to consolidate the said company more and 
more, to render it stronger, and to purge it of abuses, should they ever creep in, 
which God avert. It now remains for us to exhort with all our heart, and in the 
name of tlie Lord, all superiors, provincials, rectors, companions, and pupils of this 
re-established Society, to show themselves at all times and in all places faithful 
imitators of their father; that they exactly observe the rule prescribed by their 
great founder; that they obey with an always increasing zeal, the useful advices 
and salutary counsels which he has left to his children. 

" In fine, we recommend strongly, in the Lord, the company and all its members 
to our dear sons in Jesus Christ, the illustrious and noble princes and lords tempo- 
ral, as well as to our venerable brothers, the archbishops and bishops; and to all those 
who are placed in authority; we exhort, we conjure them not only not to suffer 
that these religious be in any way molested, but to watch that they be treated 
with all due kindness and charity. 

" We ordain that the present letters be inviolably observed, according to their 
form and tenour, in all time coming, that they enjoy their full and entire effect; 
that they shall never be submitted to the judgment or revision of any judge, with 
whatever power he may be clothed, declaring null and of no effect any encroach- 
ment on the present regulations, either knowingly or from ignorance; and this not- 
withstanding any apostolical constitutions and ordinances, especially the brief of 
Clement XIV. of happy memory, beginning with the words Dominus ac Re- 
deniptor noster, issued under the seal of the Fisherman, on the 22d of July, 1773, 
which we expressly abrogate as far as contrary to the present order. 

"It is also our will that the same credit be paid to copies, whether in manuscript 
>or printed, of our present brief, as to the original itself, provided they have the 
signature of some notary public, and the seal of some ecclesiastical dignitary; 
ihat no one be permitted to infringe, or by any audacious temerity to oppose any 
part of this ordinance; and that should any one take upon him to attempt it, let 
him know that he will thereby incur the indignation of ALMIGHTY GOD, 
and of the HOLY APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL. 

" Given at Rome, at Sancta Maria Major, on the 7th of August, in the year of our 
Lord, 1814, and the 15th of our pontificate. 



(Signed) " Cardinal Phodataire. 

" Cardinal Bbaschi." 



PROYINCIAL LETTERS. 



LETTER I. 



Remarks on the Disputes of the Sorhonne, and on the Inven- 
tion oj the Term next power, emplotjed by the Molinists 
to draw a Censure upon Mr, Jirnauld, 

Sir, Paris, Jan. 23, 1656. 

We have been greatly mistaken. It was only yesterdax- 
that I was undeceived; for, till then, I had imagined that 
the disputes of the Sorbonne were really of the utmost con- 
sequence to the interests of religion. The frequent meet- 
ings of a society so celebrated as the faculty of theology at 
Paris, in which have transpired so many extraordinary and 
unexampled things, have so raised universal expectation, 
that every one believes some great subject has been agita- 
ted. You will be much surprised, however, to learn bj this 
communication, the issue of this splendid affair, which, as I 
have made myself thoroughly acquainted with it, I shall 
state in a few w^ords. 

The two subjects under examination relate — ^the one to a 
question o^fact — the other to a question of right. 

The former is to ascertain whether Mr. Arnauld be guil- 
ty of rashness, for saying, in his second letter, that he has 
carefully read the book of Jansenius, but has not been able 
to find the propositions condemned by the late Pope (Inno- 
cent X.); nevertheless, as he condemns these propositions 
wherever they exist, he condemns them in Jansenius if they 
should be there. 
1 



2 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

The question, therefore, is, whether it be not extremely 
rash to intimate a doubt respecting these propositions actu- 
ally occurring in Jansenius, after the bishops have affirnied 
that they do? 

This affair being proposed in the Sorbonne, seventy-one 
doctors undertook the defence of Mr. Arnauld, maintaining 
that he could give no other reply to the numerous inquiries 
into his opinion of the existence of these propositions in the 
said book than this, that he had not seen them there, never- 
theless he condemned them if they were. 

Some went further, and declared that after a diligent 
search they had not been able to discover them, but that 
they had even found some quite of a contrary nature. — 
They then proceeded with some warmth, to require that if 
any doctor had seen them, he would be good enough to point 
them out. This they pleaded was so easily done, that no 
person could refuse the request, and it was an infallible way 
of convincing every one, even Mr. Arnauld himself. This, 
however, has never been conceded. 

Sucli have been the proceedings on one side: on the other, 
eighty secular doctors and about forty mendicant friars have 
condemned Mr. Arnauld's statement without any examina- 
tion into its truth or falsehood; and have even affirmed 
that the question did not respect the truth of his assertion^ 
but merely his rashness in advancing it. 

Moreover, fifteen were indisposed to concur in the cen- 
sure; and they are called the indifferent. 

In this manner the question oi fact terminated, about 
which I confess I feel very little concern; for whether Mr. 
Arnauld be or be not guilty of rashness, does not at all af- 
fect my conscience. If I had any. curiosity to ascertain 
whether the propositions occur in Jansenius, his book is 
neither so scarce, nor so voluminous, as to prevent my read- 
ing it for my own satisfaction without consulting the Sor- 
bonne. 

But were I not apprehensive of being rash myself, I be- 
lieve I should agree with almost every body I meet, who 



PROVINCIAX lETTERS. 3 

having hitherto adopted the general belief that these propo- 
sitions were in Jansenius, really begin to mistrust it, on ac- 
count of this strong refusal to point them out. I positive- 
ly have not found a single individual who could say he had 
seen them. This censure then, I fear, will do more harm 
than good, and give those who may be acquainted with the 
circumstances, quite a different impression from what is in- 
tended. In fact, people are now becoming so mistrustful, 
they will believe nothing but what they see. This point, 
however, as I observed before, is of little importance, since 
it does not touch our faith. 

The question of right seems at first sight more momen- 
tous; I have therefore taken the utmost pains to inform my- 
self upon the subject; but you will be gratified to find that 
this is as insignificant as the former. 

The investigation respected Mr. Arnauld's words in the 
same letter, <^that the grace without which we can do noth- 
ing, was deficient in St. Peter when he fell." You and I 
expected that the great principles of grace would have been 
examined, as, whether grace be bestowed on all men, and 
whether it be certainly eflicacious. Alas ! how were we de- 
ceived! For my part I am* become a great divine in a 
very little time, of which you shall have some signal proofs! 

To ascertain the real truth, I went to my near neighbour 
Mr. N., a doctor of the college of Navarre, who is, as you 
know, one of the bitterest opponents of the Jansenists; and 
as my curiosity rendered me almost as zealous as himself, 
I inquired if, to prevent all future doubts, they would not 
come to a formal decision, <'that grace is given to all men." 
But he repelled me with great rudeness, saying, that was 
not the point, although some of his party maintained, ^^that 
grace is not given to all," and that even the examiners had 
declared in full assembly, that this opinion was prohlematU 
cat. This, indeed, was his own sentiment, which he con- 
firmed by a celebrated passage of St. Augustin: <*We know 
that grace is not given to all men." 

I apologized for mistaking his meaning, and requested to 



4 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

know whether they would not, at least, condemn that other 
opinion of the Jansenists, which had excited so much cla- 
mour, *^that grace is efficacious and determines the will in 
the choice of good." But I was again unlucky, *'You know 
nothing about it," said he; ''that is no heresy; it is perfectly 
orthodox; all the Thomists maintain it, and I have done the 
same myself in my Sorbonnic disputations." 

I dared not proceed — still, I could not discover where 
the difficulty lay; but, to gain some kind of information, I 
begged him to state wherein consisted the heresy of Mr. 
Arnauld's proposition. **It is in this," said he, ''that he 
does not admit that the righteous possess the power of ful- 
filling the commands of God, in the manner in which we 
understand it." 

After this information I withdrew, elated with having 
found out the difficult point of the question. I hastened to 
Mr. N., who was sufficiently improved in his health to ac- 
company me to his brother-in-law, a most thorough Janse- 
nist, but nevertheless a very good man! In order to secure 
abetter reception, I pretended to be of his party, and asked 
if it were possible that the Sorbonne should introduce such 
an error as this into the chftrch, ''That the just always 
possess a power of fulfilling the commands of God ?" — 
•'What," replied he, "are you saying? Do you call such a 
Catholic sentiment as that an error, a doctrine which none 
but Lutherans and Calviiiists ever oppose?" "And is not 
this 7/owr opinion then?" returned I. '* Certainly not, we 
condemn it as heretical and impious." Ail astonishment, I 
perceived that I had now over-acted the Jansenist, as I had 
before, the Molinist. But not being fully satisfied with this 
reply, I entreated him to tell me ingenuously if he really 
maintained, "that the just always had a real power to keep 
the divine precepts." My gentleman grew a little angry at 
this — but it was all a holy zeal of course — and said, he 
would never disguise his sentiments for any consideration 
in tbf world; that tliis was his firm belief, that both he and 
all his party would defend it to the last moment of life, as 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 5 

the gentiine doctrine of St. Thomas and St. Augustin their 
master. 

He was so serious that I could not disbelieve him : and I 
instantly returned to my first doctor to assure him, with the 
utmost satisfaction, that I was confident peace would soon 
be restored in the Sorbonne; that the Jansenists were agreed 
upon the just possessing power to perform the command- 
ments; that I would answer for it, and would make them all 
sign it with their blood. '<Hold," said he, *^a man must 
be an excellent divine to discriminate these niceties; so fine 
and subtle is the difference between us, that we can scarcely 
discern it ourselves: — you therefore cannot be supposed to 
comprehend it, but rest satisfied that the Jansenists will tell 
you, that the just always possess a power of fulfilling the 
divine commandments, which we do not dispute, but they 
will not inform you that this is next power. This is the point. 

This term was to me quite new and unintelligible. I un- 
derstood the matter till this moment, but now all was obscu- 
rity, and I could imagine no otherwise than that this kind of 
phraseology was invented solely to confuse the subject. I 
therefore requested some explanation, but he made a great 
mystery of it, and dismissed me without any further satis- 
faction, to inquire of the Jansenists whether they admitted 
this next power. My memory, you will observe, retained 
the expression; but, as to my ^mderstanding, verily it had 
no concern with it. Fearful of forgetting it, I hastened off 
to my Jansenist, and after the first compliments, ^*Pray,^' 
said I, *'do you admit of a next power?'' He fell a laugh- 
ing, and coldly replied, ^'Tell me yourself in what sense 
you understand it, and I am then prepared to say what I 
believe." But as I was not wise enough for this, 1 could 
find no answer; but unwilling to lose my visit, I ans^vered 
at random, **I understand it in the sense of the Molinists." 
<*0," returned my gentleman, without the least emotion, 
*«and to which of the Molinists would you refer me?" — 
^^All of them," said I, -as they constitute but one body and 
are animated by one spirit.'* 



b PROVINCIAi lETTERS. 

^^ You know little," said he, <<of the subject. They are 
so much disunited in opinion, that they are quite opposite to 
each other. In one thing, however, they are all agreed, to 
ruin Mr. Arnauld; and accordingly have determined, by 
mutual consent, to use the term next, though they under- 
stand it in very different senses, that by a similarity of 
language and an external conformity, they may seem to 
constitute a more considerable body, and be able to seek his 
ruin with the greater confidence of success." 

This answer filled me with astonishment: still, I wasun-' 
willing to receive an impression of the base designs of Mo- 
linists upon the word of an individual, and my only con- 
cern being to ascertain the different senses in which they 
employed the term next power* He assured me of his per- 
fect readiness to explain it, but remarked, *<You will see 
such gross contrariety and contradiction, as will almost 
surpass your belief, and make you suspicious of my veraci- 
ty. But you will be better satisfied to have it immediately 
from themselves; and if you allow me to direct you, I should 
recommend a separate visit to a Mr. le Moine and father 
Nicolai." **I have no acquaintance," said I, *^with either 
of these gentlemen." *^But possibly you may know some 
others I may name, who entertain the same opinions." — 
This was, in fact, the case. **Do you not know," continu- 
ed he, ''some of the Dominicans, who are called the new 
Thomists, and all agree with father Nicolai?" I was ac-^ 
quainted with some of them, and being resolved to avail 
myself of his advice and pursue my object, I immediately 
left him, and went to one of the disciples of M. le Moine. 

I entreated him to inform me what it was to have the next 
power to do any thing? ''O," said he, ''this is sufficiently 
obvious : it is to have whatever power is requisite to accom- 
plish it, in such a manner that nothing is wanting to com- 
plete the action." "So then," answered I, "to have the 
next power to cross a river, is to have a boat, watermen, 
oars, and other requisites, so that nothing be wanting." — 
"Quite right." "And to have the next power to see, is to 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 7 

have good eyes and a good liglit. For, in your estimation, 
if a person possessed good eyes in the dark, he would not 
have the next power to see, because light would be needed, 
without which it is impossible to see at all." **Very logi- 
cal indeed." ^^Consequently," continued I, **when you 
say that all the just, at all times possess the next power of 
observing the commandments, you mean that tliey always 
have all the grace which is necessary for their performance; 
at least that nothing is wanting on the part of God." — 
*<Gently," said he, "the just always possess whatever is re- 
quisite for their obedience, or at least what is requisite to 
ask it of God." *^I understand, very well," said I, **they 
have all that is necessary to seek divine assistance by prayer, 
but need no other grace to enable them to pray." **Per- 
fectly correct." **But is not an efficacious grace requisite 
to excite us to pray?" **No," returned he, following the 
opinion of M. le Moine. 

To lose no time, I hastened to the Jacobins, inquiring for 
those whom I knew to be Thomists of the new school; and 
I begged them to give me information respecting this next 
power: first, asking if it were not that in which nothing was 
deficient in point of active energy. The answer was cate- 
gorically, **No." I asked, <*Pray, Fathers, do you call it 
7iext power, when any such deficiency exists; and will you 
affirm, for instance, of a person in the night, without any 
kind of light, that he has the next power to see?'' *^Most 
assuredly, if he be not blind." *'I have no objection to 
this," **but M. le Moine has quite a different view of the 
subject." <*True, but I tell you how we understand it." — 
To this I bowed, *'For I will never," returned I, '^dispute 
about a term, if I am only informed of the meaning attached 
to it. I perceive that when you state that the just always 
have the next power to pray to God, you intend that they 
require some other aid, without which they could never pray 
at all." *»Excellent, excellent," replied one of the Fathers, 
embracing me, — <^most excellent, for the just need an effi- 
cacious grace not bestowed upon all men, and which influ- 



8 PROVINCIAL liETTERS. 

ences their will to pray, and whoever denies the necessity 
of this efficacious grace is a heretic." 

**Excellent, indeed, very excellent," exclaimed I, in my 
turn: *^but, according to your opinion, the Jansenists are 
orthodox and M. le Moine a heretic; for they affirm that 
the just have power to pray, but efficacious grace is never- 
theless essential, which you approve: he says that the just 
can pray without efficacious grace, which is the statement 
you condemn." "True," said they, '^hut then M. le 
Moine calls that power by the distinguishing epithet of ne^f 
power. " 

**But really, good Father," continued I, ^<it is a mere 
play upon words, to say that you agree respecting the same 
common term, but use it in a contrary sense." To this I 
had no reply; but most fortunately, in came the disciple of 
M. le Moine I had before consulted. This struck me at the 
time as a marvellous coincidence; but I have since learned 
that these fortunate accidents are not uncommon, as they 
are in the habit of perpetual intercourse. 

Addressing myself instantly to M. le Moine's disciple, 
'*! know a gentleman," said I, '^who maintains that all the 
just have always at all times the power to pray, but that 
nevertheless they never will pray without an efficacious 
grace to impel them, which God does not always vouchsafe 
to all the just. Is this heretical ?" "Stop," said the doc- 
tor, ^^you take me by surprise — hold a little — distinguo — if 
he call that power next power he is a Tliomist, and there- 
fore orthodox — if not, he is a Jansenist, and consequently a 
heretic." "But he neither calls it next, nor not next." — 
<*Then he is a heretic — I appeal to these good Fathers." — 
However, I did not take the opinion of these judges, for 
they had already given consent by a significant nod, but 
proceeded,^ — "the gentleman refuses to adopt the term next, 
because he can obtain no explanation of it." One of the 
Fathers, upon this, was going to favour us with a defini- 
tion, but the disciple of M- ie Moine interrupted him, say- 
ing, *'Why do you wish to renew our quarrelsome disputa- 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 9 

tions? Have not we agreed not to explain the term next, 
and to use it on both sides without defining what it signi- 
fies?" — To this he instantly assented. 

I was now let into the secret; and, rising to take my 
leave, * 'Fathers," I exclaimed, <* verily I feel extremely 
apprehensive, that the whole of this affair is mere chicane- 
ry, and whatever may result from your meetings, I will 
venture to predict, that whatever censure may be inflicted, 
peace will not be established. For, if it should be agreed 
to pronounce the syllable next^ who does not perceive that, 
as no explanation is given, each party will claim the vic- 
tory? The Do^ninicans will say it is understood in their 
sense. M. le Moine will affirm it is in his, and there will 
arise more disputes respecting the signification of the word, 
than about its being introduced: for, after all, there would 
be no great hazard in receiving it without affixing any 
meaning, since it can only do mischief by its meaning. It 
would, how^ever, be unworthy of the Sorbonne and the fa- 
culty of theology to make use of ambiguous terms without 
giving some explanation; but. Fathers, I beseech you, only 
this once, what must I believe in order to be an orthodox 
Catholic?" **You must," said they, all speaking together, 
<*you must say, that all the just possess the next power, 
without attaching any meaning to the words — Abstrahendo 
a sensu Thomistarum^ et a sensu aliorum Theologorum. 

**That is to say," returned I, taking my leave, ^Hhis 
word must be pronounced with the lips through fear of be- 
ing stigmatized with the name of heretic. *'Is it a Scrip- 
tural term?" **No." *'Is it used by the Fathers, the coun- 
cils, or the Popes?" '*No." ''Is it patronised by St. Tho- 
mas?" *'No." ''Whence, then, arises the necessity of 
using it at all, since it is neither supported by any authori- 
ty, nor has any peculiar signification of its own?" <*You 
are prodigiously obstinate," they exclaimed, "but you shall 
pronounce it or be accounted a heretic, and Mr. Arnauld 
also; for our party constitutes the majority, and, if it be 
2 



10 PROVINCIAL XETTEKS, 

necessary, we can compel as many of the Cordeliers to vote 
as will carry the point." 

This last reason was so forcihle, that I bowed, and with- 
drew to give you this statement, by which you will per- 
ceive that none of the following points have been examined, 
and consequently neither condemned nor approved. 1. 
That grace is not given to all men. 2. That all the just 
have power to keep the divine commandments. 3. That 
nevertheless they need efficacious grace to determine their 
will to obey them, and even to pray. 4. That this effica- 
cious grace is not always given to all the just, and that it 
depends solely on the mercy of God. So that there is no- 
thing but the poor word next, without any meaning, that 
runs any risk. 

Happy the people who live entirely ignorant of it ! Hap- 
py they who existed before the birth of this next!/ I see 
no remedy, if the gentlemen of the academy do not, by 
some authoritative mandate, banish this barbarous term out 
of the Sorbonne— a term which has occasioned so many di- 
visions. Unless this be done, the censure must be confirm- 
ed; but I can see no other evil consequence than that of ren- 
dering the Sorbonne contemptible, which, however, will 
annihilate the authority it ought to possess on other occa- 
sions. 

Now I leave you at liberty to vote for or against the term 
nexU for 1 have too much aifection for you to persecute you 
upon so frivolous a pretext. 

If this account should afford you any gratification, I shall 
continue to give you every information of what passes. 

I am, &c« 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 11 



LETTER II. 

On the Subject of sufficient Orace» 

Sir, FariSy Jan. 29, 1656. 

At the very moment I was sealing up my last letter, our 
old friend Mr. N. came in, most fortunately for my curiosi- 
ty, for he is thoroughly acquainted with the controversies 
of the day, and is perfectly in the secret of the Jesuits, he- 
ing with them constantly, and intimate with their principal 
men. After mentioning the particular purpose of his visit, 
I requested him to state, in a few words, the points in de- 
bate between the two parties. 

These, with the utmost readiness, he told me were chiefly 
two: the one respecting next power, the other sufficient 
grace. The first I have already explained; allow me to 
speak of the second. 

The difference, then, on the subject of sufficient grace is 
chiefly thivs; the Jesuits maintain that there is a general 
grace bestowed upon all mankind, but in such a sense sub- 
ordinated to free will, that this grace is rendered effica- 
cious or inefficacious as the will chooses, without any ad- 
ditional assistance from God, and without needing any 
thing exterior to itself to make its operations effectual; on 
which account it is distinguished by the epithet sufficient 
The Jansenists, on the contrary, affirm that no grace is ac- 
tually sufficient, unless it be also efficacious, that is, that 
all those principles which do not determine the will to act 
effigctively, are insufficient for action, because, they say, no 
one can act without efficacious grace. 

Wishing afterwards to be informed respecting the doc- 
trine of the new Thomists, <^It is," exclaimed he, <*quite 
ridiculous; for they agree with the Jansenists, to admit of 
a suffimnt grace given to all men, but insist that they can 



12 PROTlXCIAIi XETTERS. 

never act with this alone, and that it is still necessary that 
God should bestow an efficacious grace really to influence 
the will, and which is not bestowed upon all." **Then,'* 
said I, '*this grace is at once sufficient and insufficient." — 
<*Very true," he answered; '*for if it be sufficient, nothing 
more is requisite to produce the action, and if not, it can- 
not be called sufficient.^' 

**But," I inquired, <*where is the difference between them 
and the Jansenists?" **They differ," said he, '*in this, 
that the Dominicans at least acknowledge that all men have 
sufficient grace,'' *'I understand you; but they say so with- 
out thinking so, because they proceed immediately to state, 
that in order to act, we must possess efficacious grace, which 
is not given to all; and hence, although they agree with the 
Jesuits in using the same nonsensical terms, they contra- 
dict them in the substantial meaning, and agree with the 
Jansenist." **True." ''How is it, then," I asked, ''that 
the Jesuits and these men are so united, and why do not 
they oppose tiiem as well as the Jansenists, for they will 
always find them powerful opponents; who, while asserting 
the necessity of efficacious grace to determine the will, pre- 
vent the establishment of that which they deem to be of it- 
self sufficient?" 

^'Tlie Dominicans," said he, "are a powerful body, and 
the Jesuits are too cunning openly to encounter them. — - 
They are content with having brought them to admit the 
term sufficient grace^ though the sense in which they use it, 
is widely different; by which means they gain the advan- 
tage of easily making their opponents' sentiments appear 
indefensible whenever they please. For, supposing that all 
men have sufficient principles of grace, it is quite natural 
to infer that efficacious grace is not necessary to action, 
because the sufficiency of the general principle will preclude 
the necessity of any thing additional. He who uses the term 
sufficient, includes whatever is essentially requisite, and it 
will be of no avail for the Dominicans to protest that they 
impute a different sense to the expression. The people 



PROVINCIAI. LETTERS. 13 

accustomed to the general use of the word, will not listen 
to their explanation. Thus the society of Jesuits has pro- 
fited abundantly by the expression adopted by the Domini- 
cans, without urging them further; and were you acquaint- 
ed with what occurred during the popedoms of Clement 
VIII. and Paul V., and how tlie Dominicans opposed the 
efforts of the Jesuits to establish the doctrine of sufficient 
grace, you would no longer be surprised at the present ces- 
sation of hostilities, and the ready consent of the latter to 
their enjoying their own opinion, provided they have equal 
liberty, especially as the Dominicans have adopted and 
agreed publicly to their favourite term. 

This complaisance is satisfactory, and the Dominicans 
are in consequence not required to deny the necessity of 
efficacious grace. This would be advancing a step too far: 
friends should not be tyrannized over; the Jesuits have gain- 
ed enough : for the world is satisfied with words, little so- 
licitous of penetrating into things; so that the name s^iffi- 
dent grace being equally received by both parties, though 
with a wonderful difference of meaning, there are no per- 
sons, except it be some of the most sharp-sighted Theolo- 
gians, but will think that Jacobins and Jesuits agree in 
sense as much as in expression. I acknowledged that I 
thought the Jesuits a shrewd set of people; and availing my- 
self of my friend's advice, I went straight to the former, at 
whose gate I found a good friend of mine, a staunch Janse- 
nist (for you must^now I have friends of all parties), who 
was in search of one of the Fathers, though not the same. 
However, I persuaded him, after much entreaty, to accom- 
pany me. Asking for one of the new Thomists, who was 
delighted to see me — '*Ohoi" said I, **my good Father, it 
is not enough for all men to liave a next power, by which 
they can in fact do nothing; they must possess sitffident 
grace, by wiiich they can do — as little. Is not this the 
doctrine of your schools!" *^Yes, certainly," returned he, 
<*and 1 firmly maintained it in the Sorbonne this very morn- 
ing: I spoke out my half-hour; and, but for the hour-glass, 



14 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

I should have exterminated that abominable proverb which 
is so current in Paris — he votes with his cap like a monk in the 
Sorbonne.*' **And pray, what may you mean by your half- 
hour and your hour-glass? Do they confine your speeches so 
exactly to a specified time?" *<Yes/' said he, * 'they have done 
so for some days past. " **And are you obliged to occupy your 
half-hour?" <*0 no, you may speak as little, but not as 
much as you please." *^A capital regulation for an ignora- 
mus! A noble excuwse for such as have nothing worth hear- 
ing to say ! But to the point. Father. Is this grace, which 
is given to all men suffident?^^ '*Yes," said he, *<and yet 
it is of no avail without efficacious grace!" ^^No." *^And 
all men have sufficient, but all have not efficacious grace?" 
'^Exactly so." <'That is to say, all men have grace 
enough, and all have not grace enough — this grace is suffi- 
cient and it is not sufficient — that is, in fact, it is nominally 
sufficient and really insufficient. Upon my word. Father, 
this is a very fine doctrine ! Have you forgot, since you 
quitted the world, what the term sufficient signifies? Do 
you recollect that it includes all that is necessary to an ac- 
tion? You cannot have forgotten this; for, to take a very 
obvious illustration, if your table were only supplied with 
two ounces of bread and a glass of water per day, should 
you be satisfied with your Prior, upon his pleading that with 
one thing more, which however he would not furnish, you 
would have quite sufficient for your support? How then 
can you state that all men have sufficient grace for acting, 
while you confess something more, which all do not possess, 
is absolutely necessary? Is this so unimportant an article of 
faith, that every one is left at liberty to decide whether effi- 
cacious grace be or be not requisite ? Or is it altogether a 
matter of indifference?" *'What do you mean," replied the 
good Father, '^by indifferent? This is heresy, rank heresy. 
To admit the necessity of efficacious grace to act effectually, 
is faith; but to deny it, is downright heresy,'^ 

'* Where are we now," exclaimed I, ^'and which side am 
I to take here? If I deny sufficient grace, I am Q,Jansenist^ 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 15 

if I admit it with the Jesuits in such a sense, that there is no 
necessity for efficacious grace, I am say you, a heretic; and 
if I concur with you, I sin against common sense. I am a 
madman, say the Jesuits. What then am I to do in this 
inevitable necessity of being deemed a madman, a heretic, 
or a Jansenist? And to what a situation are we reduced, if 
the Jansenists alone avoid confounding faith and reason, and 
thus save themselves at once from absurdity and error?" 

My good friend the Jansenist seemed pleased with my re- 
marks, and thought he liad already gained me. He said 
nothing to me, however; but turning to the Father — *Pray/ 
Said he, *4n what respects do you agree with the Jesuits?" 
He replied, **In this, that we both acknowledge that suffi- 
cient grace is given to all men." '*Butj" returned he, 
<*there are two things in the t«rm sufficient grace; the sound, 
which is mere air, and the sense, which is real and signifi- 
cant. So that when you avow an agreement with the Jesu- 
its in the word, but oppose them in the sense, it is obvious 
that you disagree with them in the essential matter, though 
you accord in the term. Is this acting with openness and 
sincerity?" <*But," said the good man, **what cause of 
complaint have you, since we deceive no one by this mode 
of speaking? for in our schools we publicly declare that we 
understand the expression in a sense quite opposite to the 
Jesuits." <*I complain," said my friend, <*that you do not 
declare to all the world, that by sufficient grace, you mean 
a grace which is not sufficient. Having changed the signi- 
fication of the usual terms in religion, you are obliged in 
conscience to declare, that when you admit of sufficient 
grace in all men, you really intend that they have not suf- 
ficient grace. Every one understands the word sufficient 
in the same sense, the new Thomists alone excepted. Wo- 
men of all classes who constitute one-half of the world, the 
whole court, the army, the magistrates, lawyers, merchants, 
artificers, and in fact the mass of mankind, the Dominicans 
apart, consider the word sufficient as denoting whatever is 
necessary. And no one is aware of your singular interpre- 



16 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

tation; every where it is said that they maintain the doctrine 
of sufficient grace. What then is the natural inference, but 
that their opinion is, that all men possess grace sufficient 
for action? Especially when they are seen to coalesce with 
the Jesuits who receive it in this sense, for selfish and in- 
triguing purposes ? Is not the uniformity of your expres- 
sions, connected with this union of party, an undeniable ex- 
position and proof of the uniformity of your sentiments? 

^^Christians inquire of divines, what is the real condition 
of human nature since the fall? St. Augustin and his dis- 
ciples reply, that it does not possess sufficient grace, unless 
it pleases God to bestow it. The Jesuits come forward and 
assert that all do absolutely possess it. Consult the Domi- 
nicans upon this contradictory representation, and what is 
the consequence? They coalesce with the Jesuits. By this 
artifice their numbers appear so considerable. They divide 
from those who deny sufficient grace, and declare that all 
men have it; and who would imagine otherwise than that 
they sanction the Jesuits? When, lo! they proceed to inti- 
mate that this sufficient grsLce is useless, without the effica- 
cious, which is not bestowed upon all men ! 

**Shall I present you with a picture of the church amidst 
these different sentiments? I consider it like a man who, 
leaving his native country to travel abroad, is met by rob- 
bers who wound him so severely that they leave him 
half dead. He sends for three physicians resident in the 
neighbourhood. The first, after probing his wounds, pro- 
nounces them to be mortal, assuring him that God alone 
can restore him; the second, wishing to flatter him, declares 
he has sufficient strength to reach home, and insulting the 
first for opposing his opinion, threatens to be the ruin of 
him. The unfortunate patient, in this doubtful condition, 
as soon as he perceives the approach of the third, stretches 
out his hands to welcome him who is to decide the dispute. 
This physician, upon examining his wounds, and ascertain- 
ing the opinions already given, coincides with the second, 
and these coalesce against the first to turn him out with con- 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 17 

tempt: and they now form the strongest party. The patient 
infers from this proceeding, that the third physician agrees 
with the second, and upon putting the question, he assures 
him most positively that his strength is suiiicient for the 
proposed journey. The wounded man, however, expatia- 
ting upon his weakness, asks upon what he founds his opin- 
i on? **Why, you have still got legs, and legs are the means 
which, according to the constitution of nature, are sufficient 
for the purpose of walking." <*Very true," replies the 
wounded traveller; **but have I all the strength which is re- 
quisite for making use of them; for really they seem useless 
to me in my present languishing condition?" <* Certainly 
they are," returns the physician, *'and you never will be 
able to walk unless God vouchsafe some extraordinary as- 
sistance to sustain and guide you." **What then," says 
the infirm man, ''have not I sufficient strength in myself to 
be fully able to walk?" *<0 no, far, very far from it." 
**Then you have a different opinion from your friend respect- 
ing my real condition." **I candidly admit, I have." 

**What do you suppose the wounded man would say to 
this? He complains of their strange proceeding, and of the 
ambiguous language of this third physician. He censures 
him for coalescing with the second, when he was in fact of a 
contrary opinion, though they agreed in appearance, and 
for driving away the first, with whom he really coincided; 
and then, after trying his strength, and finding by experi- 
ence the truth of his weakness, he dismisses them both; and 
recalling the first, puts himself under his care, follows his 
advice, and prays to God for the strength which he confesses 
he needs. His petitions are heard, and he ultimately re- 
turns home in peace." 

The good Father was all astonishment at this parable, 
and made no reply. Anxious to encourage him, I said, iu 
the softest manner, ''But after all, what do you think, my 
good Father, of applying the term sufficient to a grace which 
you say, it is a point of faith to believe is really insuffi- 
cient?^^ "You," said he, are at liberty to speak whatever 



18 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

you cheese upon these subjects, being a private person; I 
am a monk and belonging to a society. Cannot you per- 
ceive the wide difference? We are dependent on our supe- 
riors: they depend elsewhere, and have promised our votes. 
What do you suppose would become of me?" — Half a word 
was sufficient, and we recollected that one of his brethren 
was banished to Abbeville on a similar occasion. 

**But," inquired I, ''how is it that your community 
pledges itself at all upon the subject of this grace?'* "Oh, 
that is another question : all I can say is, our order has most 
strenuously maintained the doctrine of St. Thomas respect- 
ing efficacious grace. How zealously did it oppose that of 
Molina from the very moment of its introduction! How 
has it laboured to establish the necessity of the efficacious 
grace of Jesus Christ! You cannot be ignorant surely of 
what was done under Clement VIII. and Paul V., that the 
former being prevented by death, and the latter by some 
Italian affairs, from publishing his bull, our arms were re- 
tained in the Vatican. But the Jesuits, who, from the very 
commencement of the heresies of Luther and Calvin, took 
advantage of the people's incapacity to discern between the 
truth and falsehood of the doctrine of St. Thomas, circula- 
ted their sentiments with such rapidity, that they soon ob- 
tained a dominion over the popular faith, and we should 
have been decried as Calvinists, and treated as the Janse- 
nists now are, if we had not qualified the truth of an effica- 
cious grace by the acknowledgment, at least in appearance, 
of a sufficient one. In this dilemma what better expedient 
could be devised, at once to preserve the truth and save our 
credit, than that of admitting the name of sufficient grace 
but denying the reality? This then is the state of the case." 
He spoke in so melancholy a tone that I really pitied him; 
but not so my friend, who continued, "Do not flatter your- 
self with having preserved the truth; if she had no other pro- 
tectors, she would have perished in such feeble hands. — 
You have received the name of her enemy into the churchj, 
which is as baneful as having received the enemy himself. 



TROV INC I AJL LETTERS. IQ 

Names are inseparable from things. If the term sufficient 
grace be once established, it will be vain to say that yoa 
understand a grace which is insufficient It will never do: 
the explanation will be detested : the world uses more since- 
rity on the most unimportant occasions: the Jesuits will 
triumph; for this will in fact be establishing their suflScient 
grace, while yours will be only nominal, and thus you will 
propagate an article of faith which is contrary to your own 
belief." 

"No," said the Father, "we would all suffer martyrdom, 
rather than consent to the establishment of sufficient grace 
in the Jesuitical sense of the term. St. Thomas, whom w^e 
have sworn to follow, even to death, is diametrically op- 
posed to it." My friend, more grave than I could be, re- 
plied, "Your fraternity, Father, has received an order 
which is miserably managed; it abandons the grace which 
was entrusted to it, and which was never before abandoned 
from the creation of the world. That victorious grace 
which the patriarchs anticipated, w hich the prophets pre* 
dieted, which was introduced by Jesus Christ, preached by 
St. Paul, explained by St. Augustin the greatest of the 
Fathers, embraced by his followers, confirmed by St. Ber- 
nard, the last in the succession of the Fathers, maintained 
by St. Thomas, the angel of the schools, transmitted from, 
him to your society, maintained by so many of your Fathers 
and so gloriously defended by your fraternity under the 
popes Clement and Paul; this efficacious grace which has 
been thus committed to you as a sacred deposit, in order to 
secure, by means of an indissoluble holy order, a succession 
of preachers, to proclaim it to the end of the world, is at 
length deserted for the most unworthy considerations. It 
is high time for others to arm in its defence. It is time for 
God to raise up some intrepid supporters of the doctrine of 
grace, who, happily unacquainted with the principles of the 
age, shall serve God from motives of genuine love. The 
Dominicans may no longer defend it; but it will not there- 
fore be destitute of protectors, for it will raise and qualify 



20 PROVINCIAX I.ETTE11S. 

others by its own almighty energy. Grace demands holy 
and sanctified hearts — hearts which she purifies herself, and 
detaches from ^hose worldly interests which are so incom- 
patible with the Gospel. Reflect seriously, my Father, 
and take care lest God remove the candlestick from its 
place, and leave you in darkness and dishonour, as a pun- 
ishment for your indifference to a cause of such vital impor- 
tance to his church." 

He would have said much more, for he kindled as he pro- 
ceeded, but I thought proper to interrupt him, and, getting 
up, said, "Verily, Father, had I any influence in France, I 
would have it proclaimed with the sound of a trumpet — 
'Know all men, that when the Jacobins state that sufficient 
grace is given to all, they mean that all have not the grace 
which is really sufficient" — After which you might state 
the same, but no otherwise, as often as you pleased." — 
Thus our visit terminated. 

You will perceive from this communication, that there is 
a political siifficiency not dissimilar to a next power; and yet 
it seems to me, that any unc wliu is not a Jacobin, may, 
without incurring any hazard, doubt of both next power and 
sufficient grace. 

As I am folding up my letter I hear that the censure is 
inflicted; but as I know nothing respecting the wording of 
it, and as it will not be made public till the 15th of Februa- 
ry) I shall write no more till the next post. 

I am. &;c. 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 21 



Meply of the Provincial to the two former Letters of his 
Friend. 

Sir, Feb. 2, 1656. 

I HAVE not kept your former letters to myself; every body 
sees, understands, and believes tbem. They are not only 
in liigh estimation with divines, but prove very amusing to 
others, and even to the ladies. 

A gentleman of the academy, one of the most illustrious 
of that illustrious body, who had only read your first letter, 
wrote me as follows: "I wish that the Sorbonne, which 
owes so much to the memory of the late Cardinal (Richlieu), 
would acknowledge the jurisdiction of his French academy. 
The author of the letter ought to have satisfaction; for, as 
an academician, I would authoritatively condemn, banish, 
proscribe — I am ready to say I would exterminate, with all 
my might, this next power, which creates such an unmean- 
ing clamour about notliing: the mischief is that our acade- 
mic power is so remote and circumscribed. I am extreme- 
ly concerned about it; the more so, that my feeble ability is 
inadequate to render you a suitable return for your favours. 

I am, &c." 

The following w^as written by a person whom I cannot 
name, to a lady who had sent him your first letter: 

It is impossible for you to conceive the obligation you 
conferred in sending the letter you conveyed to me: it is re- 
markably witty and well written. Its details are without 
tediousness, its statements respecting the most perplexed 
affairs perfectly clear: its raillery is in a fine style; it is in- 
structive to those who are ignorant of these disputes, and 
renews the pleasure of such as were previously acquainted 
with them. It is, moreover, an excellent apology, or, if 
you will, a delicate piece of satire, and quite innocent. In 



22 PEOVINCIAI. XETTERS^. 

a word, there is so much skill, spirit, and judgment in it, 
that I am anxious to know the writer. 

I am, &c." 

And you, Sir, are desirous of knowing the person who 
could give such an account, hut he content to respect with- 
out knowing him, and when you know him you will honour 
him the more. 

Continue your communications, and let the censure come 
whenever it will, we are prepared to receive it. The terms 
next power and sufficient grace with which we are menaced 
alarm us no more. We have learned too well from the Je- 
suits, the Jacobins, and Mr. le Moine, how strangely they 
have been distorted, and how little there is in these new 
phrases to give us any concern. 

Ever yours, &c» 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 9.3 



LETTER m. 

WRITTEN IN REPLY TO THE PRECEDING. 

'Fhe Injustice, Msurdity, and jyullity of the Censure upon 
Mr, Jirnauld. 

Sir, Faris, Feb. 9, 1656. 

I RECEIVED your letter, and at the same time a manuscript 
copy of the censure. I find myself as well treated in the 
one as Mr. Arnauld is ill used in the other. I am appre- 
hensive there may he extremes on hoth sides, and that 
neither of us is sufficiently known by our judges: if we were, 
I feel assured Mr. Arnauld would have merited the appro- 
bation of the Sorbonne, and I the censure of the academy. 
Such is the contrariety that has awaited us! To defend 
his innocence he has only to procure publicity; to preserve 
my reputation I must seek the shades. Unable therefore 
to make my appearance, I must trouble you to discharge 
my duty to those excellent persons with whose approbation 
I have been favoured, while I communicate some further in- 
formation respecting the censure. 

I freely confess, Sir, my extreme astonishment at it; ex- 
pecting, as I did, nothing less than a condemnation of the 
most horrible heresies; but you will participate my surprize 
when informed, that all these splendid preparations vanish- 
ed into nothingness at the very moment when the mighty 
effect was to be produced. 

This will be obvious, if you will be good enough to recol- 
lect the strange accounts which have so long been circula- 
ted respecting the Jansenists. Of what cabals, errors, 
schisms, and conspiracies liave they been accused ! How 
have they been decried and blackened in the pulpit and from 



24 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

the press! And how prodigiously has this violent torrent 
increased within these few years, in which they have been 
openly and publicly accused, not only of being heretics and 
schismatics, but apostates and infidels, as denying the mys- 
tery of transubstantiation and renouncing Jesus Christ and 
the Gospel! 

After so many accusations a resolution was taken to ex- 
amine their writings, as the means of forming a correct 
judgment. The second letter of Mr. Arnauld was selected 
as containing the worst errors. The examiners were his 
most avowed enemies, who, devoting their utmost attention 
to the search of objectionable passages, eventually produce 
a single proposition relating to doctrine, which they exhibit 
for censure. 

What is the natural inference, but that the proposition 
selected under such circumstances, must contain the very 
essence of the vilest imaginable heresies? And yet there is 
nothing in reality which is not so plainly and formally ex- 
pressed in the passage Mr. Arnauld quotes from the 
Fathers, that I have never found any individual capable of 
pointing out the least difference. Still it is believed an es- 
sential difference must exist, because the citations from the 
Fathers being unquestionably orthodox, the proposition of 
Mr. Arnauld must be perfectly contrary to become hereticaL 

The Sorbonne, it was of course anticipated, would afford 
the requisite explanation. All Christendom opened its eyes 
to discover in the censure they inflicted, that point which 
to vulgar minds was imperceptible. Mr. Arnauld defends 
himself by furnishing his own proposition and the passages 
in the Fathers whence he took it, in parallel columns, which 
rendered their conformity obvious to the meanest under- 
standing. He shows in a quotation from St. Augustin, 
<<that Jestis Christ exhibits a just man in the person of St. 
Peter, who teaches us by his fall to avoid presumption,^' 
and again, "that God left St. Peter destitute of grace, to 
prove that man can do nothing without it" He cites St. 
Chrysostom, as saying, <<that the fall of St. Peter was not 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 25 

occasioned by any lukewarmness towards Christ, but from 
a want of grace; and that this did not arise so much from 
that apostle's negligence, as from his being forsaken of Ood, 
whicli was to teach all Christians that without God they 
can do nothing." He then states his own criminal propo- 
sition, namely, **The Fathers point out to us a just man in 
the person of St. Peter, in whom grace, without which we 
can do nothing, was wanting." 

Vain must be the attempt here to make Mr. Arnauld's 
statement as perfectly different from tliat of the Fathers, as 
truth is from error, and faith from heresy: for wiierein does 
the difference consist? Is it in his saying that *'the Fathers 
point out a just man in the person of St. Peter?" But these 
are the identical words of St. Augustin. Is it in the phrase, 
<*Grace was wanting?" But the same St. Augustin who 
says that **Peter was a just man," says that *'he wanted 
grace on that occasion." Is it in the expression, that, 
'^without grace we can do nothing?" But does not St. Au- 
gustin declare the same in the very same paragraph? — a 
truth which St. Chrysostom had before advanced, in these 
much stronger terms — *>His fall did not originate in his 
lukewarmness, nor in his negligence, but from a defect of 
grace and through his being forsaken of God." 

These considerations produced an universal suspense, to 
ascertain wherein the alleged diversity consisted, till at 
length tliis celebrated and long expected censure, which had 
occasioned so many meetings, appeared. But alas! alas! 
what a disappointment! Whether the learned doctors did 
not choose to condescend to instruct our feeble capacity, or 
for any other undivulged reason, certain it is they have 
done nothing else but pronounce the following w ords, **This 
proposition is rash, impious, blasphemous, accursed, 
and heretical ! ! ! " 

Is it incredible. Sir, that most people, deceived in their 

expectations, are very much displeased, and censure the 

very censurers themselves, and that they deduce the most 

charming inferences in favour of Mr. Arnauld's innocence? 

4 



26 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

^>What!" say they, ^*is this all that so many infuriated doc- 
tors, after so long an examination of his works, liave been 
able to discover. What! only three objectionable lines, 
and these composed of the very words of the greatest di- 
vines of the Greek and Latin churches? Is this author to 
be ruined when his writings afford no better a pretext for 
his condemnation? who can possibly produce a nobler evi- 
dence of the faith of this accursed, but excellent individual? 
How is it that this censure comprises so many imprecations, 
dreadful as were ever invented against Arius and Antichrist 
liimselfj poison, plague, horror^ rasJme&s, hnpietyy blasphemy^ 
abomination, execration, anathema^ heresy — and all to com- 
bat what is imperceptible and invisible? If this war ibe 
waged against the words of the Fathers, what becomes of 
faitii — what of tradition? If it be against Mr. Arnauld's 
proposition, let them explain this prodigious disagreement; 
for really we can at present perceive nothing but the most 
perfect coincidence. Whenever we discover the guilt, we 
are prepared to detest it; but so long as we can see nothing 
but what the holy Fathers themselves believed and express- 
ed in the identical terms, how can we possibly withhold 
our reverence?" 

Such then is the unhappy situation of people who pene- 
trate too deeply into these affairs; you and I, methinks, be- 
ing not so profound, may remain at ease. Why should we 
be wiser than our masters? let us by no means attempt 
it: we should wander into a boundless labyrinth ! One step 
more and this censure will be itself heretical ! Truth is of so 
delicate a nature, that the least deviation betrays us into er- 
ror; but this error of Mr. Arnauld is so minute, that the 
slightest conceivable departure front it restores us to truth. 
The difference between this proposition and the true faith 
dwindles into an imperceptible point; the distance is so 
small, that, being incapable of perceiving it, I became real- 
ly apprehensive of opposing the doctors of the church, 
while aiming at too precise a conformity to the doctors of 
the Sorboiine. In this perplexity I deemed it necessary tf> 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. ^7 

consult one of those who remained neutral on the first ques- 
tion, for the purpose of ascertaining the real truth. Meet- 
ing with a very sensible person of this description, I en- 
treated him to point out the circumstances of this difference, 
frankly owning myself incapable o^ discerning any. He 
replied, smiling at my simplicity, **Are you really weak 
enough to believe there is any difference? In what can it 
consist? Do you imagine, if it had been discovered, it 
would not have been announced triumphantly, and exposed 
to the people with the same eager delight as is evinced in 
decrying Mr. Arnauld?" — 1 now percei\ed that they who 
were neutral upon the first question, did not however disre- 
gard the second. Still, being anxious to Iiear liis reasons, 
I inquired why this proposition had been attacked? **Can 
you, then," returned he, **be ignorant of two things, which 
even the most superficial inquirer know s, namely, that Mr. 
Arnauld always avoided asserting any thing which was not 
entirely founded on the tradition of the church — and that 
his enemies resolved nevertheless to excommunicate him at 
any rate? And as the writings of the one furnished no pre- 
text to the designs of the other, they have been necessitated, 
in order to gratify their malignity, to take the very first 
proposition they found, and condemn it without saying why 
or wherefore? Are you not aware that the Jansenists hold 
them in check, and urge them so vehemently, that if the 
least syllable escape them contrary to the opinions of the 
Fathers, whole volumes are instantly accumulated to which 
they are obliged to yield? so that after such numerous evi- 
dences of their own weakness, their opponents have thought 
it more convenient and more easy to censure than to reply, 
to find condemning monks rather than substantial argu- 
ments." 

*^But," said I, <*if this be the case, their censure is una- 
vailing, for who will attach any credit to what is utterly 
unfounded and capable of being at once refuted ?" <*Ah," 
replied the doctor, '*you would adopt a different language, 
were you acquainted with the spirit of the people. Their 



28 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

censure, all censurable as it is, will for a time produce near- 
ly its intended effect: for, however invalid it maybe proved 
to be, it will be regarded by the generality of people with 
as much deference, as though it were the justest censure in 
the world. Let it only be cried about the streets, — * Here 
is the censure of Mr. Arnauld — here is the condemnation of 
the Jansenists,' — and the Jesuits will have effected their 
purpose. How many, do you suppose, of those who read 
it, will understand it? How many will perceive that it is 
objectionable? Who will deeply interest himself in the af- 
fair, or take the trouble of giving it a thorough examina- 
tion? You see then it will be prodigiously serviceable to 
the enemies of the Jansenists. They are sure by this arti- 
fice, of a triumph : and however vain, as usual, it may be, 
it will at least continue some months, after which they will 
invent some new mode of subsistence. They live, accord- 
ing to the proverb, from hand to mouth. This is their pre- 
sent plan; sometimes they have a catechism, in which a 
child is made to anathematize their adversaries; then a pro- 
cession, in which sufficient grace leads efficacious grace in 
triumph; anon a comedy, where the devils fly off with Jan- 
senius; one while an almanack; and now — this said cen- 
sure." 

**Once, Sir," said I, '*I thought the method of the Moli- 
nists indefensible, but after what you have said, I admire 
their prudence and policy. I see they could do nothing 
more judicious or more sure." ^*You understand it," re- 
turned he; *Hhe safest expedient has always been to be si- 
lent, which made a learned divine say, *the wisest among 
them are those who intrigue much, speak little, and write 
nothing.' 

**It was in this spirit that from the very commencement 
of their meetings, they prudently decreed, that if Mr. Ar- 
nauld should come into the Sorbonne, he should only be al- 
lowed simply to explain what he believed, and not enter 
the lists of controversy with any one. The examiners be- 
ng desirous of some little deviation from this rule, found 



FROVINCIAI. lErrERS. 29 

themselves much mistaken, and were too vigorously refuted 
bj his second apology. 

"In the same spirit they discovered this rare and novel 
invention of the half-hour and hour-glass: by which they 
avoided the urgency of those troublesome doctors, who un- 
dertook to refute all their reasons, to produce books to de- 
monstrate their falsehood, to challenge them to answer, and 
to reduce them to total silence. 

*< They foresaw, that the secession of so considerable a 
inimber of doctors from their assemblies, in consequence of 
an abridgment of the liberty of discussion, would discredit 
their censure, and that Mr. Arnauld's protesting its nullity 
from the very first would prove but a miserable preamble 
to procure it a favourable reception. They are satisfied that 
those who have no prepossessions will, at least, respect the 
judgment of the seventy doctors who had nothing to gain by 
defending Mr. Arnauld, quite as much as that of others, 
who had nothing to lose by condemning him. But after 
all, they consider it a very fine thing to procure a censure, 
though it be from only a part of the Sorbonne, and not from 
the whole body; though it passed in defiance of the liberty 
of discussion, and succeeded by mean, unwarrantable arti- 
fices; though it furnish no explanation of the point of dis- 
pute; though it determine not wherein the alleged heresy 
consists; though in fact, it speaks but little through fear of 
mistake. This silence itself is, to the generality, very mys- 
terious: and this remarkable advantage will ensue, that the 
most critical and penetrating divines will never be able to 
charge upon it one erroneous argument! 

^* Do not, then, disturb yourself; be assured there is 
nothing heretical in the condemned proposition: it is only 
oifensive as being introduced into Mr. Arnauld's second let- 
ter. Are you incredulous? inquire of M. le Moine, the 
most zealous of the examiners, who, in speaking this very 
morning to a doctor, one of my friends, who happened to 
question him respecting the nature of this difference, and 
whether he might be allowed any longer to adopt the language 



30 PROVINCIAL BETTERS. 

of the Fathers, made this charming reply : <*This proposition 
would be orthodox in any other mouth; it is only in Mr. 
Arnauld that the Sorbonne has condemned it." And now, do 
you not admire this Molinistical machinery, which pro- 
duces such wonderful effects in the church, that what is or- 
thodox in the Fathers, is heretical in Mr. Arnauld; that 
what is heretical in the semi-Pelagians, is orthodox in the 
writings of the Jesuits; that the ancient doctrine of St. Au- 
gustin is an untenable novelty, and that the novel inven- 
tions, which spring up every day, must pass for the ancient 
faitli of the church V 

Here we parted; but to me the meeting was instructive, 
for I discovered a new species of heresy. The sentiments 
of Mr. Arnauld are not heretical, but his person. He is a 
heretic, not for any thing he has written or said, but solely 
because he is Mr. Arnauld. This is all that can be alleg- 
ed against him. It is a perso7ial heresy. Whatever he 
may do, never, never will he be a good Catholic, till he cea- 
ses to be. The grace of St. Augustin will never be true, so 
long as he defends the doctrine. It will come to nothing, 
unless Ae oppose it: this would be the certain and almost the 
only method of establishing it, and of exterminating Molin- 
ism: such is his destructive influence upon the opinions he 
ventures to adopt! 

Here, then, let us leave these differences: they belong to 
divines J not to divinity. We are no doctors, and have no 
right to intermeddle with their disputations. Let all our 
friends be informed of my account of the censure, and con- 
tinue your affectionate confidence so long as 

I remain, kc. 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. SI 



LETTER IV. 

Of actual Grace, and of Sins of Ignorance, 

Sir, Paris^ Feb. 25, 1656. 

The Jesuits are an incomparable set of men. I have seen 
Jacobins, doctors, and all descriptions, but my knowledge 
was still incomplete. Others are mere copyists of them. — 
The stream is purest at the spring-head; I therefore went to 
one of their most intelligent partizans, accompanied by my 
faithful Jansenist, v,ho had been with me in my former 
visits. 

Anxious to obtain full information respecting the dispute 
between them and the Jansenists, on the subject of what 
they call actual grace, I intimated to the good Father, the 
obligation he would confer in condescending to instruct me; 
and, as I did not even know the signification of the term, I 
entreated him to explain it. **Most readily," said he; **for 
I am pleased with people that are inquisitive. Our defini- 
tion is as follows: actual grace is an inspiration of God, by 
which he teaches us his will, and by which he excites with- 
in us a desire to fulfil it." **Whatthen, is the precise point 
of dispute, " said I, ** between you and the Jansenists r" — 
<*It is this," answered he; **we maintain that God bestows 
actual grace upon all men in every temptation. Otherw ise, 
if they did not possess actual grace to prevent the commis- 
sion of sin, guilt could never be imputed to them; but the 
Jansenists affirm that sins committed without actual grace 
must be imputed: but they are surely dreaming." 1 per- 
ceived his drift; but, for the purpose of obtaining clearer in- 
formation, I said, *' My good Father, this plj rase, actual 
grace, perplexes mc: I am really unaccustomed to it, and if 



S£ PBOVINCIiX LETTERS. 

you will have the goodness to state the meaning, without 
using the terra, you will confer a great obligation," **0h, 
that is to say, you wish me to substitute the definition for 
the thing defined. Very well, the sense will remain unal- 
tered. We maintain then, as an incontrovertible principle, 
that an action cannot be deemed sinful, if. previous to the 
commission of it, God does not communicate the knowledge 
of what evil there is in it, and an inspiration which excites 
us to avoid it. Do you understand me now." 

Astonished at this doctrine, according to which all unpre- 
meditated sins and those committed from forgetfulness of 
God, are not chargeable upon the criminal, I turned to my 
friend the Jansenist, and perceived from his manner, that 
he did not believe this statement^ but, as he was silent, I re- 
marked to the Father, that I should wish for some substan- 
tial proofs of the truth of his representations. ''Do you re- 
quire proofs ?" said he. "I will furnish them, proofs the 
most irrefragible: trust me. " Upon this, he withdrew to 
search after some books, and I in the mean time inquired of 
my friend if he thought any other being was of his opinion. 
*'Is this, then," he replied, "such a novelty to you? Assu- 
redly, neither the Fathers, the Popes, the Councils, the 
Scriptures, nor any book of devotion, ancient or modern, 
have delivered such sentiments; but as for Casuists and new 
Scholastics, he will produce them in prodigious numbers." 
<'0h, but I despise such writers as these, if they contradict 
tradition." "You are right," said he; and at that moment 
the good father returned laden with volumes. "There, 
read that" — offering me the first of the load — "it is a sum- 
mary of sins by Father Bauny, and as a proof of its excel- 
lence, this is the fifth edition." "This book," observed my 
Jansenist, in a whisper, "has been condemned at Rome, and 
by the bishops of France." "Turn to page 906," said the 
Father. I did so, and found these words — "To sin so as 
to be accounted guilty before God, it is necessary to know 
that what is going to be perpetrated is not good, or at least 
to be doubtful of it, to entertain apprehensions, or to sup- 



PKOVINCIAI. liETTBKS. 33 

pose that Grod will be displeased with the premeditated ac- 
tion, and forbids it; notwithstanding which, it is done in 
defiance of every obstacle." 

**This," I remarked, **is a fine beginning!" *'And yet," 
said he, '*mark the power of envy. Upon this very pointy 
M. Hallier, previous to his uniting with us, ridiculed Fa- 
ther Bauny, by applying these words to him, Ecce qui iollit 
peccata mundi, *See the man who takes away the sins of the 
world." **True," replied I, *'this redemption of M. Bauny 
is rather of a novel description." He asked if I w ished for 
a still higher authority? **Then read this performance by 
Father Annat, the last which he produced against Mr. Ar- 
nauld. Look at the thirty-fourth page, which I have turned 
down, and marked with a pencil: every syllable is gold." 
The words were as follow: *'He who has no thought of 
God, or of his sins, nor any a])prehension, that is, (as he 
explained it) any knowledge of liis obligation to exercise 
acts of contrition or love to God, possesses no actual grace 
to exercise such acts; but it is true also that he does not sin 
in omitting them, and if he be finally condemned, it will not 
be as a punishment for this omission." A few- lines lower 
it is added, '*The same may be affirmed of committing sin.'* 

**Do you observe," said the Father, *'in what manner 
the author speaks respecting sins of omission and of com- 
mission? He forgets nothing. What say you?" **0h, it is 
charming — the consequences deducible, how fine! I can al- 
ready discern surprising mysteries! An incomparably 
greater number, I see, are justified by their ignorance and 
forgetfulness of God, than by grace and the sacraments of 
religion! But pray. Father, is this a well founded trans- 
port? Is there not some resemblance here to that sufficiency 
which does not suffice? I am tremendously apprehensive of 
the distinguOf having been already entrapped by it. Are you 
really in good earnest?" *'How !" said the Father, with 
some warmth — **this is no jest: raillery. Sir, is inadmis- 
sible upon this subject." ''Indeed I am not in sport, but 
fear that what seems desirable may not prove to be true." 
5 



34 ritOVINCIAI lETTER*, 

^*For the purpose then/' said he, '<of further confirma* 
tion, study the writings of M. le Moine, who has taught 
the same in full council. In fact, he learned it of us, hut 
has had the merit to disentangle its intricacies: and how in- 
eontestible the evidence he has adduced ! His doctrine is, 
that for an action to be sinful, all the following thoughts 
must pass in the mind — but read it yourself, and weigh 
every word.'^ I then read the Latin original, of which I 
give you a translation. *' 1. On the one side God diffuses 
over the soul a certain love which disposes it to the thing 
commanded; and, on the other, a rebellious concupiscence al- 
lures it to disobedience. 2. God inspires it with the know- 
ledge of its own infirmities. 3. God inspires It with the 
knowledge of the physician who must cure it. 4. God in- 
spires it with the desire of being healed. 5. God inspires 
it with the desire to pray and implore his aid." <<And," 
said the Jesuit, * 'if all these do not concur, the action is 
not properly sinful, and cannot be imputed, as M. le Moine 
states in this and the succeeding passage. Are you desi- 
rous of other authorities? Behold they are here.'* "Yes, 
yes," said my Jansenist, whispering; ''but all modem au- 
thorities. — **I see them," replied I. — ''But, my good Fa- 
ther, this would be a delightful thing for some of my ac- 
quaintance; really I must introduce them! Perhaps you 
scarcely ever saw such innocent people: they never think of 
God; vice has blinded their reason: they have never known 
any thing of their infirmities, or of the physician who can 
cure them: they have never cherished a wish for the health 
of their vSouls, much less have they besought God to bestow 
it; so that, to adopt M. le Moine's language, they are now 
as innocent as at their baptism: they have never entertain- 
ed a thought of loving God, or of contrition for sin — ac- 
cording to Father Annat, they never committed any sin 
through defect of charity or penitence: their life is one con- 
tinual search after diversified pleasure, unattended with the 
least interruption from remorse. These excesses induced 
me to believe their destruction inevitable; but, my good 



P»0VINCI.4X LETTRRS. 35 

Father, you have taught me, that these very excesses render 
their salvation the more infallible. what a blessedness 
is yours to justify mankind in this manner! Others pre- 
scribe painful austerities to save the soul; but you demon- 
strate that such as were considered in the most desperate 
state, are perfectly well ! 0, what a glorious method to pro- 
cure happiness both in this world and in another! T have 
always supposed that our criminality was enhanced in pro- 
portion to our forgetfulness of God; but now I see, when- 
ever one is able to arrive at this point, to be totally thought- 
less, ^very thing henceforth becomes allowable and inno- 
cent. Away then with those who sin by halves, still retain- 
ing some attachment to virtue! These demi-transgressors 
will be all lost; but, as to open sinners, hardened offend- 
ers, sinners without restraint, whose iniquity is full and 
overflowing, there is no hell for them; they have cheated 
the devil by abandoning themselves entirely to his influ- 
ence !'^ — 

The good Father, who clearly perceived the connexion 
between his principles and my consequences, dexterously 
made his escape, and without exhibiting any symptoms of 
passion, either from a natural mildness of temper, or from 
motives of policy, merely said, **To explain our mode of 
avoiding these incongruities, you must understand that our 
statement respecting the transgressors of whom you speak 
is, that they would not incur guilt, if they had never thought 
of repentance or the dedication of themselves to God; but 
we maintain they have all cherished such thoughts, and that 
God never permits any man to commit sin without previous- 
ly giving him a view of the evil he is about to perpetrate, 
and a desire to avoid it, or at least to implore his aid to 
enable him to shun it; none but Jansenists will conti'adict 
this statement." 

<^And," replied I, "does the heresyof the Jansenists con- 
sist in denying that every time sin is committed, the offend- 
er feels remorse of conscience, and that in defiance of it, he 
overleaps every barrier, as Father Bauny observes? Real- 



36 PKOVITrciAL XETTBRS. 

ly this is a curious kind of lieresy enough! I have heen ac- 
customed to suppose that a man was condemned foi' being 
devoid of all good thoughts, but to be so for not believing 
that every one else possesses them — positively, I never 
imagined such a thing before! But, Father, I feel myself 
bound in conscience to undeceive you, and to say, that there 
are thousands who cherish no such desires, who sin without 
any remorse, nay, who absolutely make a boast of their in^ 
iquities. Can any persons be better aware of this than 
yourselves? It is not surely that you do not confess any 
one of this description, for they are usually found amongst 
people of the greatest distinction: but aware, good Father, 
of the dangerous consequences of )'0ur doctrine. Are you 
unaware of the effect it may produce on libertines, who 
eagerly avail themselves of every means of discrediting re- 
ligion? And with what a pretext do you furnish them, by 
affirming as an indtibitable article of faith, that they feel, 
on every fresh commission of sin, a secret restraint, and a 
"wish to abstain? Is it not obvious that, being conscious 
from personal experience of the falsehood of your statement, 
they will extend the consequences beyond this single point? 
They will maintain that your incorrectness on this subject, 
renders you suspicious on others, and thus you will compel 
them to infer, either that religion is untrue, or that you 
are totally ignorant of it. " 

Here my friend interposed to second my remarks, by say- 
ing, ♦'Father, you would promote your opinions better by 
avoiding so lucid a statement as you have now given of the 
signification of the term actual grace: for how can you ex- 
pect persons to believe in so undisguised a sentiment as 
this, *that no one can commit sin without being previously 
acquainted with his infirmity and his physician, and cher- 
ishing a desire to be healed, and to solicit a cure from God?' 
Is your mere affirmation sufficient to convince the world 
that the avaricious, the impure, and those who commit blas- 
phemy, or indulge in murderous revenge, robbery, and sac- 
rilege, really wish to possess chastity, humility, and the 



PKOVINCIAI. tETTEKsJ. 37 

other Christian virtues? Is it credible that those philoso- 
phers^ who so higlily celebrated the power of nature, knew 
its weakness and its remedy? Would you assert that such 
as confidently maintained this maxim — *that God does not 
bestow virtue, nor did any one ever solicit it of him' — real- 
ly thought of asking it themselves? W lio can imagine that 
the Epicui'eans, who denied the existence of a Divine Pro- 
vidence, felt any disposition to pray to God? They aver, 
*that it is an affront to implore his interference in our ne- 
cessities, as if he could descend to concern himself about 
OUT affairs!* Who can suppose that idolaters and atheists, 
amidst the incalculable diversity of their temptations to sin, 
entertain a desire to seek the true God, with whom they are 
utterly unacquainted, for the bestowment of real virtues, of 
which they are as ignorant.'" 

"Yes," said the good Father, in a firm and resolute tone — 
"yes, we do, and will say so; and rather than admit that 
it is possible to commit sin without clearly perceiving its 
vileness, and cherishing an opposing wish, we will main- 
tain that the whole world, including even the most impious 
and infidel of the human race, have these inward sugges- 
tions and desires in every moment of temptation. You can 
produce no evidence to tlie contrary at least from Scrip- 
tui-e." 

Here I interposed, and said, "What, Father, is it neces- 
sary to recur to Scripture to prove what is so obvious? 
This is no point of faith, nor of argumentation; it is a mat- 
ter of fact: we see it, know it, and feel it" 

My Jansenist, strictly adhering to the prescribed rules, 
replied, **If you really determine to be guided solely by the 
scriptures, I readily consent, but at least do not resist that; 
and since it is written "that God has not revealed his judg- 
ments to the heathen, but has left them to wander in their 
pwn ways,' do not say that God has enlightened those whom 
the sacred writings afhrm to be left in darkness and in the 
shadow of death. Is not tlie error of your sentiment suffi- 
ciently exposed by St Paul, representing himself as the cA?>/ 



38 PROVISrCIAi LETTERS. 

of sinnerSf for a sin which he declares he committed through 
ignorance and unbelief? Is it not ohvious from the GonpeV 
that they who crucified Jesus Christ, needed that forgive- 
ness which he solicited for them, though they knew not the 
wickedness of their conduct, and which, according to St. 
Pasil, they never would have perpetrated, had they heen 
aware of it? Does not Jesus Christ forewarn us that per- 
secutors will arise, imagining they do God service by aim- 
ing to destroy his church, showing that the sin which the 
apostle represents as the greatest of all others, may be com- 
mitted by those who, so far from being conscious of its 
criminality, would really suppose they sinned in omitting ta 
do it? Lastly, has not Jesus Christ himself taught us that 
there are two descriptions of sinners; the one sins knowing- 
ly, the other ignorantly; and both will suffer punishmenty 
though in different proportions?" 

Urged by so much Scriptural evidence, to which the good 
Father had appealed, he began to give way; and, allawing 
that the wicked were not under an immediate inspiration to 
sin, he claimed at least the admission that the righteous 

never sin, unless God gives them 'Oho," interrupting 

him, '*you are for retracting your statement — you are aban- 
doning your general principle; and, aw are that it is unavail- 
ing with respect to sinners, you are desirous of a com- 
promise, at least in behalf of the righteous. But even in 
this case it would be so circumscribed in its application, as 
scarcely to be of any service, and is not therefore, worth a« 
argument." 

My friend, who seemed as profound in the subject, as if 
he had been studying it that very morning, replied, <*0 
Father, this is the last refuge to whicli your party repairs; 
but it is of little avail: the example of the righteous is by na 
means more advantageous to your cause. Who doubts that 
they are frequently surprised into sin? Do they not assure 
us that concupiscence often spreads its seci'et snares in their 
path, and that it is common for sober-minded persons to con- 
cede to pleasure what they only intended to yield to neces- 



PROVIWCIAI. XETTERS. SB 

sity' as St. Aiigustin admits with respect to himself in liis 
confessions. How frequently do we see zealous people be- 
come exasperated in a discussion in defending their own in- 
tereafs, when at the moment they conscientiously believe 
themselves contending only for the interests of truths and 
long retain the same conviction ! 

*'But what shall we say of those who zealously do evil, 
imagining it to be really good, of which the history of the 
church furnishes many instances, and all of them admitted 
by the Fathers to be sinful? If not, how could any secret 
iniquities be imputed to the righteous? How would it b« 
true that God only knows their extent and number? That 
no one knows whether he is deserving of love or hatred, 
and that the most holy persons ought to live in perpetual 
fear and trembling, although, in the language of St. Paul, 
'they know nothing (criminal) by themselves?' 

^*These examples, then, of the righteous and the wicked, 
equally controvert the necessity which you imagine, of know- 
ing the evil of an action, and loving the opposite virtue, in or- 
der to constitute it sinful; since the passionate eagerness for 
their vices, which the wicked manifest, is sufficiently demon- 
strative of their being destitute of all desire after virtue; and 
the attachment which the righteous have to virtue, striking- 
ly evinces that they do not always know, as the Scriptures 
state, the sins which they are daily committing. 

<*It is thus evident that the righteous transgress through 
ignorance, and that the most eminent saints seldom sin 
otherwise; for how is it conceivable that such holy persons, 
who avoid, with so much care and diligence, the minutest 
thing which they believe to be displeasing to God, but who 
nevertheless commit many sins every day — how is it possi- 
ble, that on every occasion, immediately previous to their 
fall, they should have a knowledge of their weakness, and 
of the physician, and possess a desire to be healed, and to 
solicit divine assistance; yet, in defiance of all these pious 
inspirations, these zealous souls should be left to overleap 
every opposing barrier, and rush into sin?" 



40 PKOVINCIAIi XETTERS. 

«<The inference, then, Father, is this, that neither the 
sinners, nor saints, are always in possession of this knowl- 
edge, these desires, and these inspirations; that is, to adopt 
your own phraseology, they have not always actual §rau 
upon every such occasion. No longer, therefore, believe 
your new authors, who assert it is impossible to sin while 
in ignorance of what is right, but rather say, in concur- 
rence with St. Augustin and the ancient Fathers, that it is 
impossible not to sin while continuing ignorant of what is 
right — JVecesse est ut pecet, c) quo ignoratur justitia.^^ 

Though the good Father found that his sentiments, both 
with regard to the righteous and the wicked, were equally 
untenable,' he was not totally discouraged; but, after a little 
pause — *^I will now convince you," said he; and, again 
taking up Father Bauny, at the very page before cited, 
<*Look, look at the reason on which his opinion is founded. 
I assure you he is not deficient in demonstration. Read 
his quotation from Aristotle, and, after such express au- 
thority, you must either coincide with our opinion, or burn 
the writings of this prince of philosophers. Hearken to 
Father Bauny 's principles. He first states 'that an action 
cannot be deemed criminal wlien it is involuntary." 
'<True," said my friend. I remarked, ''This is the first 
time I have ever seen you agree: this, then, is the very 
point at which you should stop: take my advice." **That 
would be doing nothing," returned he; *<for you must be 
informed of the circumstances which are essential to a vol- 
untary action." '*! am very much afraid," said I, *'you 
will disagree again." ''O don't be alarmed, it is all right — 
Aristotle is on my side. Pray attend to Father Bauny: in 
order that an action be voluntary, it must be the action of a 
man who sees, knows, and well understands what degree of 
good and evil attaches to it — Voluntarmm est, as we com- 
monly say with the philosopher — (Jristotle, you know," 
said he, with great self-complacency, squeezing my handj 
^ 'quod Jit a principio cognoscente singula in quibus est actio; 
so that when the will chooses or rejects inconsiderately and 



PROYINCIAL LETTEns. 41 

without investigation, before the understanding has heen 
able to discover the evil of complying or refusing, doing or 
neglecting an action, it is neither good nor bad, inasmuch 
as. previovis to this examination, this observance and re- 
flection of the mind, on the good or bad qualities of the ob- 
ject in view, the action is not voluntary — Are you satisfied 
now?" 

**Why, really," replied I, *'Aristotle is of the same 
opinion with Father Bauny. but this does not lessen my 
surprise. Wiiat! is it not acting voluntarily, whvn oue 
knovs what he does, and does it with a fixed determination 
t)f mind? Is it rei'iisite furtlier, that he should 'see, under- 
stand, and fully investigate the degree of evil in that ac- 
tion?' If this be the case, it is scarcely possible that awi/ 
conduct should be strictly voluntary, for few persons have 
all these considerations in view. How many oaths in 
gaming, how many excesses in debauchery, how many irre- 
gularities in the Carnival must be involuntary, and by con- 
sequence, neither good nor bad. because unaccompanied with 
these reflections on the good or evil qualities of the deed! 
But can Aristotle be really chargeable with such a senti- 
ment? for I have understood he was a man of sense." 

''I will soon explain this," said my Jansenist: and re- 
questing to look into Aristotle's Etliics, he opened the vol- 
ume at the commencement of the third book, whence Father 
Bauny had taken the very words already cited, saying, -*! 
can forgive you, my good Father, for believing upon the 
testimony of Father Bauny, that this was the sentiment of 
Aristotle; but you would have thought otherwise, had you 
read him yourself. He states, indeed, that *for an action 
to be voluntary, it is necessary to know its peculiarities: 
siXGULA in quibus est actio: but nothing else is meant by 
this, than the particular circumstances of t!ie action, as ap- 
pears most obviously from the examples he adduces in justi- 
fication of his position, such as those which refer to an ig- 
norance of the circumstances, as, 4f a person, when exliib- 

iting a machine, inadvertently shoots a dart at anotiier,* 
6 



42 PROVI]VCIAL lETTERS. 

and the instance of Merope slaying her son, when intending 
to kill her enemy, with others of a similar nature. 

^*Hence it is apparent, what description of ignorance that 
is, which renders actions involuntary, — an ignorance of the 
particular circumstances, called, as you know, by the di- 
vines, the Ignorance of fact: but in regard to the ignor- 
ance of right, til at is. of the good and evil in an action, 
whicii is the present subject of our consideration, let us in- 
quire whetlier Aristotle and Father Bauny agree. *A11 the 
wicked,' says the pliilosopher, 'are ignorant of what they 
ought to do, and what they ought to avoid; and it is this 
which renders them wicked and vicious. On this account, 
it cannot be said, that because a man is ignorant of what is 
proper to be done to discharge his duty, his conduct is 
therefore involuntary; for this ignorance in the choice of 
good and evil, does not constitute an action involuntary, 
but vicious. The same may be said of him, who is unac- 
quainted with the rules of duty, as this ignorance is blame- 
worthy, and not excusable: so that the ignorance which con- 
stitutes actions involuntary and pardonable, is that only, 
which regards the fact in particular, with all its individual 
circumstances: we excuse and forgive the person whom wc 
consider as having acted contrary to his will.' 

"Will you now say, Father, that Aristotle is of your 
opinion? What must be the universal astonishment to per- 
ceive, that a pagan philosopher was more enlightened than 
your doctors, upon a point so important to morality and 
the conduct of souls, or the knowledge of those conditions 
which render actions voluntary or involuntary, and conse- 
quently which excuse or condemn them? Do not expect 
any support, then, from this prince of philosophers, and no 
longer oppose the prince of divines, who decides the point in 
the following words (B. I. of his Retr. ch. 15): »They who 
sin through ignorance, commit the action with the consent 
of the will, though they have not the intention of commit- 
ting sin; so that a sin of this description cannot be perpe- 
trated without the will, but the will induces the action only, 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 43 

HOt the sin, which, however, does not prevent the action 
heing sinful, its contrariety to the interdicting precepts, 
being a sufficient crimination.' " 

The Jesuit seemed surprised still more at the quotation 
from Aristotle, than that from St. Augustin: but, as he was 
revolving in his mind, what reply to offer, a servant came 
in to say, that Madam the Marechale of , and Mad- 
am, the Marquise of , requested an interview: and 

thus leaving us abruptly, *■! will speak," said he, '*to some 
of our Fathers, upon this subject: they will be able to sug- 
gest a reply. We have some very subtle divines amongst 
us, who are profoundly acquainted with the controversy." 

We understood him; and being alone with my friend, I 
expressed my astonishment at the total subversion of morals 
which this doctrine tended to produce. '*How!" said he, 
**/am absolutely astonished at your astonishment! And do 
you not know, then, that they are much greater delinquents 
in morality, than even in other subjects:" 

He instantly furnished me with some monstrous examples, 
deferring more ample illustrations to another opportunity. 
The first time I enjoy the pleasure of an interview, these 
will supply matter for conversation. 

I am, &c . 



44 PBOVINCIAIi LETTERS. 



LETTER V. 

The Design of the Jesuits in establishing a new Morality.-^ 
Two kinds of Casuists amongst them: the great Remissness 
of the one, and the equal Rigidity of the other. Reason of 
this JJiiference. Explanation of the Doctrine of Frobabili- 
ty. Ji Crowd of Modern and obscure Authors substituted 
for the Holy Fathers. 

Sir, Paris, Mar, 20, 1656. 

In fulfilment of my promise, I here transmit you the first 
outlines of Jesuitical morality, the views of those men who 
are so •'eminent in learning and wisdom, who are all under 
the guidance of a divine wisdom, which is so much more 
certain than all the light of philosophy I" 

You imagine, perhaps, I am jesting; indeed I am serious, 
this is their own language in their publication, entitled 
Imago primi seculi. I have copied their woi^ds, which I 
shall continue to do in the following eulogium: *'lt is a soci- 
ety of men, or Tather of angels, of whom Isaiah prophesied, 
*Go, ye angels, prompt and swift.' Is not this prediction 
obvious? *They have the spirit of eagles: it is a troop of 
phoenixes, so numerous are they, as a late author has shown: 
they have changed the face of Christianity." Their ipse 
dixit is doubtless sufficient, as you will see by their maxims^ 
whicli I am going to introduce to your notice. 

Anxious to be fully informed, I was unwilling to confide 
implicitly in my friend's representations, but felt determin- 
ed to converse with them personally. I found every sylla- 
ble he had said, correct: he had indeed never deceived me: 
you shall have an account of these conferences. 

My friend had given such extravagant statements that I 



PJROVINCIAt BETTERS. 45 

could scarcely credit them; but he pointed out his authority 
in their own publications, and no defence could be made, 
but that the opinions of individuals ought not to be imputed 
to the whole body, and I assured him that I knew some who 
were as rigid as tliose whom he quoted were lax. This gave 
him occasion to exhibit the true spirit of tlie society, which is 
by no means generally known, and which perhaps to you may 
be a desirable piece of information. He thus began: 

<'You suppose that it tells considerably in their favour to 
show that some of their fathers coincide as much with the 
maxims of the Gospel, as others oppose them; and hence you 
infer, that tliese lax opinions are not attributable to the 
whole society. I am well aware of this, for if it were the 
case, they would not tolerate such contradictions: but since 
they have those who maintain so libertine a sentiment, you 
must conclude that the spirit of the society is not that of 
pure Christianity: if it were, they would not endure those 
who so diametrically opposed it. <*What then," said I, 
^*what can be the design of the whole body? Doubtless they 
have no fixed principles, and e^ ery one is at liberty to say 
what he pleases." '-No, this cannot be: so large a society 
could not subsist, were it so rash as to leave itself without 
a soul to govern and regulate its concerns. There is, be- 
sides, an express order that nothing shall be printed with- 
out the approbation of their superiors." ''But how can the 
superiors themselves permit such opposing sentiments?" "I 
will explain it," said he. 

<'Tlieir object is not to corrupt morals: this certainly is 
not their design: but neither is it their sole purpose to re- 
form them: this w^ould be bad policy. Their intention is 
this — Having the best opinion of themselves, they think it 
both beneficial and necessary to the interests of religion, 
that their reptjtation should be extended through the world, 
and that they should obtain the directionof every one's con- 
science; and as tiie strict maxims of the Gospel are adapted 
to govern some people, the^ make use of them w henever the 
occasion favours it: but inasmuch as these maaLims do not 



46 PROVIIVCIAI. LETTERS. 

accord with the views of the generality of mankind, they 
dispense with them in regard to such predilections, for the 
sake of affording universal satisfaction. On this account, 
as they are connected with persons of every condition in 
life, and of every country and clime, it becomes necessary to 
employ casuists whose varieties of sentiment should suit 
every existing diversity of circumstance. Hence you will 
easily perceive, that if they had none but casuists of lax no- 
tions, they would defeat their principal purpose, which is to 
please every body, because the truly religious are solicitous 
of a more rigorous leader. But as there are not many of 
this description, they do not require many guides of the 
stricter class to direct them: a few of the one will suffice for 
a few of the other; while the multitude of lax casuits offer 
their services to the numerous classes that wish to be allow- 
ed an undisciplined remissness. 

**It is by this obliging and accommodating conduct, as Fa- 
ther Petau calls it, that they open their arms to all the world. 
For, if a person should apply to them who was resolved up- 
on the restoration of any thing he had obtained by fraudu- 
lent means, do not imagine they would attempt to dissuade 
him from his purpose; on the contrary they would applaud 
and confirm his determination. But if another should pre- 
sent himself soliciting absolution without restitution, it 
would be strange indeed if they did not furnish him with ex- 
pedients, and guarantee his success. 

**By this means they preserve all their friends, and defend 
themselves against all their enemies. If they should be re- 
proached for their extreme laxity, they instantly exhibit to 
the public, their austere directors, with some volumes which 
they have composed on the strictness of the Christian law; 
and with these proofs, they satisfy the superficial, who can- 
not fathom their depths. 

'*Thus they accommodate all descriptions of people, and 
are so well prepared with an answer to every question, that 
in countries where a crucified Jesus passes for foolishness, 
they suppress the scandal of the cross, and preach only Jesus 



PROVINCIAX LETTERS. 47 

Christ in his glory, and not in a state of suffering; as in India 
and China, where they allow their Christians to practise 
idolatry itself, by the ingenious devise of making them con- 
ceal an image of Christ under their cloaks, to which they 
are instructed to address mentally, the adorations rendered 
publicly to the idols Cachinchoam and Keum-fucum. This 
is charged upon them by Gravina, a Dominican, and the 
same policy is described in a Spanish memorial, presented 
to Philip IV . king of Spain, by the friars of the Philippine 
islands, as reported by Thomas Hurtado, in his book of 
Martyrology, p. 427. The cardinals of the society de pro- 
paganda Jide, were obliged expressly to forbid the Jesuits, 
upon pain of excoramunicat on, to allow the worship of idols 
under any pretext whatever, and to conceal the mystery of 
the cross from those whom they instructed in the faith, posi- 
tively commanding them to admit no one to baptism, till 
after such instruction, and enjoining them to exhibit a cru- 
cifix in their churches,* as is amply detailed in a decree of 
the congregation on the ninth of July, 1646, signed by Car- 
dinal Capponi. 

**In this manner they have spread over the whole world, 
by their doctrine oi probable opinions^ whicli is the spring 
and foundation of all this disorder. You must learn what 
it is from their own .testimony, — for they take no more pains 
to conceal it, than they do the facts I am stating, with this 
difference only, that they veil their human and political pru- 
dence under the pretext of divine and christian prudence, 
as if faith, supported by tradition, were not invariable in 
all times and places, as if the rule were to bend to the ac- 
commodation of the person who was to submit to it, and as 
if there were no other means for sinners to purify their 
stains of guilt, than corrupting the law of God; whereas 'the 
law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul,' to conform 
to its salutary directions! 

"Let me beg you to go and visit these worthy Fathers, 
and I assure you that you will at once perceive the reason 
of their doctrine respecting grace, in the laxity of their mo- 



48 PROTINCIAI. LETTERS. 

rals: you will vSee the Christian virtues so disguised, and so 
completely divested of that charity which is their lii'e and 
soul, you will witness so many crimes palliated, and so ma- 
ny disorders permitted, that it will no longer appear strange 
that they should maintain, "that all men have at all times 
sufficient grace to lead, in th?ir sense of the phrase, a reli- 
gious life.' As their morality is entirely pagan, nature is 
suflftcient to guide them. When we affirm the necessity of 
efficacious grace, the object presented to view embraces oth- 
er virtues. It is not simply to cure vices by other vices, it 
is not to induce men to conform to the external duties of !'e- 
ligion, but to practise a nobler virtjtethan that of the Phari- 
sees or the sages of the pagan world. Law and reason are 
sufficient for these effects. But to detach the soul from the 
love of the world, to withdi-aw it from what is an object of 
the fondest affection, to make a man die to himself and to 
love God with supreme and unalterable attachment, can be 
accomplished only by an omnipotent power. It is as irra- 
tional to pretend that we possess a perfect command over 
these graces, as it is to deny that those virtues which do not 
include the love of God, and which the Jesuits confound with 
Christian virtues, are not practicable by our own powerl" 

Hitherto my friend spoke with much concern, for he is 
seriously afflicted at these disorders. For my own part I 
applauded the excellence of Jesuitical policy, and went im- 
mediately to one of their best casuists, with whom I wished 
at this moment, to renew a former acquaintance. Knowing 
how to proceed, I had no difficulty in introducing and con- 
ducting the subject. Retaining liis attachment to me, F was 
welcomed by a thousand expressions of kindness, and after 
some desultory conversation, I took occasion from the sea- 
son, to make an inq.iiry respecting fasting for the purpose 
of leading insensibly totlie particular object of my solicitude. 
I stated how difficult I felt it. He exhorted me to resist my 
own disinclinations; but persisting in my complaints, he be- 
came compassionate, and began to frame some excuses for 
me. Many which heofiered did not exactly accord with my 



PROVINCIAIi BETTERS. 49 

taste, till at length he asked if I could not sleep without a 
supper? *'No," said I, **in consequence of which I am ohlig- 
ed to breakfast at noon, and to sup at night." ''I am very 
happy," answered he, *'that I have discovered an innocent 
method of relieving your anxiety; go, go. you are under no 
obligation to fast. However, do not depend on my word, 
come with me into the library." 

I went — *'Here, here," said he, taking up a book, "is 
your proof, and oh, what a noble one it is ! furnished by Es- 
cobar." **Who is Escobar?" *'What, are you ignorant 
of the name of Escobar, of our society, who has compiled 
this moral theology from twenty-four of our Fathers, who, 
in his preface, compares this book to <that of the Revelation 
which was sealed with seven seals,' and says that Jesus de- 
livered it thus sealed to the four living creatures, Suarez, 
Vasquez, Molina, and Valentia, in the presence of four and 
twenty Jesuits, who represent the four-and-twenty elders?" 
All this allegory he read, which of course he found to be ve- 
ry just, and by which he gave a vast idea of the excellence 
of this work! When he turned to the passage respecting 
fasting — **See, see," he exclaimed: "Tr. 1, Ex. 13, N. 67, 
Is he who cannot sleep without a supper obliged to fast? By 
no means." *'Are you now satisfied?" *'Not entirely so," 
replied I,- *<for I can fast pretty well by making a breakfast 
in the morning and a supper at night." '*Oho, then, look 
at what follows; there is not a single consideration omitted. 
If a person can content himself with a breakfast in the morn- 
ing and a supper at night," — "That is exactly my case" — 
<*he is not obliged to fast; for no one is und^r any obliga- 
tion to disarrange the order of his meals." "Noble reason!" 
"But," continued he, "do you accustom yourself to much 
wine?" "No, Father, I exceedingly dislike it." "I said 
this," added he,, "simply to intimate that you might take it 
in the morning, or whenever you pleased without breaking 
your fast; and a glass of wine is always cheering. Pray 
observe N. 75,^' "May a person, without breaking his 
fast, drink wine at any hour he pleases, and in considerable 



50 rilOVINClAL LETTERS. 

quantities?" "He may, and a dram too. I did not recol- 
lect the dram," said he, *«I must note it down in my memo- 
randa." * 'Truly this Escobar," said I, '*is a fine man." — 
<'0," rejoined he, '*every body admires him: he puts such 
lovely questions. Look again, N. 38, **if a man doubt 
whether he he of age, is he obliged to fast? No. But sup- 
pose I should come of age to-night, at an hour after mid- 
night, and to-morrow is to be a fast, should I be obliged to 
fast to-morrow? No: for you may eat as much as you please 
from twelve to one, because you would not yet have com- 
pleted twenty-one years: and so having a right to break 
your fast, you are not obliged to keep it." ''0," said I, 
**what an agreeable publication!" **lndeed it is — one is 
never tired of it. I pass whole days and nights in reading 
it: absolutely I can do nothi^ig else." 

The good fatlier seeing my satisfaction, proceeded in a 
perfect ecstacy: **Look here, at a passage in Filiutius, one 
of the twenty-four Jesuits, vol. ii. tr. 27. p. 2. ch. 6. n. 143. 
**Suppose a person is fatigued, ad insequendam puellam, is 
he obliged to fast? Certainly not. But suppose he has fa- 
tigued himself for the express purpose of being released 
from fasting, must he then observe it? No — though it should 
be his premeditated design, he is not obliged." *^Would 
you ever have believed this?" appealing to me. **Why, 
really, I cannot tell how to believe it yet. What, is it no 
sin to break a fast when I can keep it? And is it allowable 
to seek opportunities of sinning, or rather, are we under no 
obligations to avoid them? This is accommodating indeed!" 

**Not always, that is according " '•According to what?" 

said I. *'0h," replied the Jesuit, '^suppose one has sus- 
tained any inconvenience in avoiding such opportunities, do 
you think there is an indispensable obligation? If so, it is 
more than Father Bauny concedes, p. 1084: **We must not 
refuse absolution to those who live on the confines of sin, if 
they should be so situated that they cannot quit them with- 
out becoming the subjects of public observation, or without 
bringing themselves into diflaculties." '*I am rejoiced at 



PROVINCIAL XETTEBS. 51 

this, Father, and since we are allowed not to avoid oppor- 
tunities of sin, it only remains that we be permitted deliber- 
ately to seek them." * 'Sometimes," he remarked, *'even 
this may be granted: so says the celebrated casuist Basil 
Pontius, whose opinion is quoted and approved by Father 
Bauny, in his Treatise on Penitence, q. 4. p. 94: ^'A per- 
son may seek an occasion to sin directly and by itself, pri- 
mo et per se; when either our own temporal or spiritual good, 
or that of our neighbour, demands it." 

"Veiily." said I, ''this must be a dream! Do I really 
hear religious people talk in this manner? Tell me, Father, 
are you absolutely and conscientiously of this opinion?" — 
<*No, certainly." ^'Wliy, then, speak against your consci- 
ence?" **Not at all: I did not speak according to my con- 
science, but in conformity to Pontius and Father Bauny; 
and you may follow them with safety, for they are skilful 
polemics." '*Wliat! because they have inserted these three 
lines ill their writings, am I allowed to search out occasions 
and pretences to commit sin? I imagined that the Scrip- 
tures and the tradition of the church constituted the only rule 
of conduct, not your casuists!" *'Why," said he, all as- 
tonishment, *'you absolutely remind me of , the Jansenists! 
Is it not in the power of Father Bauny and Basil Pontius 
to make their opinions probahle?^^ *'But I am not satisfied 
with probability, I am anxious to obtain certainty." **Oli," 
said he, *^you know nothing respecting the doctrine of pro- 
bable opinions: if you did, you would speak in a very differ- 
ent manner: you must really come under my instructions: 
your time is by no means thrown away by coming here to- 
day, I can assure you: for without being acquainted with 
this doctrine, you can know nothing; it is the very founda- 
tion, the a 6 c of all our morality." 

I was enchanted to find him at the very point I wished; 
and entreated him to state what was meant by a probable 
opinion. **Our authors," said he, ''will furnish you with 
the best explanation. All of them, including the twenty- 
four elders, agree in the following representation in princ. 



52 PROVINCIAL XETTERS. 

ex. 3. n. 8. **An opinion is called probable when it is found- 
ed upon reasons of some importance. Hence it sometimes 
happens that only one very grave doctor can render an opin- 
ion probable;' and observe the reason; *for a man who is 
particularly devoted to study, w^ould not adopt an opinion 
unless he were induced by a good and sufficient reason^' — 
*'And thus," I remai'ked, *'a single doctor may turn and 
overturn, settle and unsettle the consciences of men at his 
own pleasure, and be always safe " ''Sir," said he, ''you 
must not ridicule or think of opposing this doctrine- When- 
ever the Jansenists have attempted it, they have completely 
failed. No, no, it is too firmly established. Attend to 
Sanchez, one of our. most celebrated casuists, Som- 1. 1. c 
9' n. T: 'You may perliaps doubt whether the authority of 
a single good and learned doctor be sufficient to render an 
opinion probable. I answer, it is; and Augelus, Sylvius, 
Navarre, Emanuel Sa, &c> assert the same, furnishing this 
proof; a probable opinion is that which has a considerable 
foundation, but the authority of a wise and j)ious man is 
not of small, but of great importance; — for— and pray lis- 
ten to this reason — if the testimony of such a man possess 
sufficient w^eight to convince us that any occurrence took 
place, for example, at Rome; why should it not be equally 
satisfactory in deciding a doubtful point of morality?" 

'*This is a curious comparison indeed," said I, "between 
the ordinary events of the world, and the scruples of con- 
science!" '"Have patience, and Sanchez suggests tfie an- 
swer in the next paragraph — "and I disapprove of the lim- 
itation prescribed by certain writers, that the authority of 
such a doctor is sufficient in questions relating to human af- 
fairs, but not in those which refer to religious concerns: for 
it is of tiie greatest importance in both." "Father," speak- 
ing frankly, "I can place no dependence upon this rule. — 
Who can assure me, while your doctors assume such a liber- 
ty of examining every thing by mere reason, that what ap- 
pears certain to one shall appear the same to all? The di- 
versity of opinions is so considerable -" "You do not 



PROVINCIAI. LETTERS. 53 

understand," interrupting me, **their views are indeed fre- 
quently different, but this is noticing to the purpose; every 
one may render his own probable and certain. We are 
well aware their opinions are not all coincident; so much 
the better: in fact, they scarcely ever agree; for a very few- 
questions can arise in which you will not find one say yes, 
and another no; but each of these, contrary opinions is pro- 
bable^ as Diana states on a certain subject, part 3. tom. 4. 
T. 244; ^Pontius and Sanchez are of an opposite opinion, 
but inasmuch as they are both learned men, each one makes 
his own sentiment probable.' " 

''But, Father, in such cases it must be very embarrassing 
to know which to prefer." ^*0 no, not all; it is only to fol- 
low the one which is most agreeable to yourself." ''But 
what if the other opinion should be the most probable?** '*It 
does not signify." "But what if it should be the most sure?** 
**Still it does not signify: only observe the explanation of 
Father Emanuel Sa, of our society, in his Aphorisms c?e -Du- 
bio, p. 183: *A person may do what he conceives to be per- 
mitted by one probable opinion, although the contrary be 
more sure; but the opinion of one grave doctor is sufficient." 
*'But suppose an opinion is both less probable and less sure, 
is it permissible to follow it, rejecting that which is believed 
to be more probable and more sure?** <*Yes, once more: 
hear that great Jesuit Filiutius, Mor ((mest tr. 21. c. 4. n. 
128. *It is allowable to follow the opinion which is less 
probable, though it be also less sure. This is the concur- 
rent sentiment of modern authors.' Is not this explicit?" 
^*Most certainly," said I, <<we are left at the most perfect 
liberty, reverend Father, thanks to your probable opinions! 
Our consciences are entirely free and unconstrained ! Pray, 
as to your other casuists, do you enjoy the same license in 
your answers?" ♦'O yes: we give what answers we please, 
or rather whatever they please who consult us. Our rules 
are deduced from our Fathers Laiman, Tkeol. Mor. 1. 1. tr. 
1. c. 2. § 2. n. 7; Vasquez, Disp. 62, c. 9. n. 47; Sanchez, 
in Sum. \. 1. c. 9. n. 23; and from our twenty -four inprin. 



54 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

ex. 3. n. 24. The words of Laiman, which the twenty- 
four elders have followed, are 'when a doctor is consulted, 
he may give his advice not only as probable, according to 
his opinion, hut contrary to his opinion, if it should be 
deemed probable by others, when the advice which is oppos- 
ed to our own is more favourable and agreeable to the per- 
son who consults him; si ^orte et illi favorabilior sen exopta- 
tior sit: but I say further, that lie >\ill not act without rea- 
son, if he should give those who consult him an opinion, 
held probable by some learned individual, though he felt 
confident at the same time, it was absolutely false." 

**Charmihg, charming, ray good Father; your doctrine is 
admirably accommodating indeed!" To have a reply al- 
ways at hand, yes or no, just as you please — what an ines- 
timable privilege, and how can it be sufficiently valued! — 
Now I perceive the use which you doctors make of their 
contrary opinions on all subjects: one is al\\ays for you, 
and the other is never against you; if you do not find your 
account in one way, you are sure to do so in another; and 
thus you are always safe." *'True, true: and we can say 
with Diana, who found Father Bauny on his side when Fa- 
ther Lugo vsas in direct opposition — Soepe premente Deofert 
Deus alter opem. i. e. *if one God distress us, another will de- 
fend us.'" '*! understand this very well; but another diffi- 
culty strikes me. After having consulted one of your doc- 
tors, and taking his opinion, which left me at entire liberty, 
suppose one should be entrapped by a confessor who refuses 
absolution without a total change of sentiment: have you 
provided for such a case, Father?" *'To be sure; they are 
obliged to absolve their penitents who hold some probable 
opinions, upon pain of committing a mortal offence; so that 
they can never be at a loss. This is luminously stated by 
our Fathers: amongst others, by Father Bauny, tr. 4. Be 
Poenit. q. 13. p, 93. *When the penitent,' says he, 'follows 
a probable opinion, the confessor must absolve him, although 
his opinion be contrary to that of the penitent.' " "But, Fa- 
ther, he does not affirm that it would be a mortal sin not to 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 55 

aibsolve him." <<How hasty you are! Hear, hear! he pro- 
ceeds witli this express conclusion: 'To refuse to absolve a 
penitent wiio acts conformably to a pro6a6/e opinion, is a sin 
in its own nature mortal;' and he quotes, in confirmation of 
this sentiment, three of our most distinguished divines, Sua- 
rez, torn. 4. dist. 32. sect. 5; Vasquez, JJisp. 62. c. 7; and 
Sanchez, n. 29." 

^•0 my good Father," said I, *'how admirable are the re- 
gulations you have adopted! No reason remains for future 
apprehension, iio confessor will ever dare to disobey. But 
I had no idea before of your power to enjoin upon pain of 
damnation; but imagined you were only capable of fa/tiwj: 
away siihy not thinking tliat you could introduce them. Now^ 
I perceive you can accomplish every thing." *'You are 
not correct," said he; ''we cannot introduce sins, we can on- 
ly point them out: I have more than once observed that you 
are not well versed in scholastic theology." **Be that as 
it will, Father," returned I, "my doubts are thus far remov- 
ed: but I have another perplexity — what do you do when the 
Fathers of the church are in direct opposition to any one of 
your casuists?" ''Surprising ignorance! The Fathers 
were good authority for the morals of their age, but they 
lived at too remote a period for us. They can no longer re- 
gulate our principles; it now belongs to the new casuists.-— 
Attend to Father Cellot, de Hier, 1. 8. cap. 16. p. 714, who 
follows our celebrated Father Reginaldus: *In questions of 
morality, the new casuists are preferable to the ancient Fa- 
thers, although they lived nearer the apostolic times:' and 
in conformity with the same sentiments, Diana inquires, p. 
5. tr. 8. reg. 31. 'Are the clergy obliged to make restitu- 
tion for revenue which has been improperly applied? The 
ancient Fathers reply in the aifirmative, but the modern ones 
in the negative: let us then adhere to that opinion which dis- 
penses us from the obligation of making restitution." 

"Oh," said I, "what charming maxims, and how replete 
with comfort!" "We leave the Fath.ers," returned he, "to 
those who treat of positive tliviuity; but w^e who guide the 



56 PROVINCIAI. LETTERS. 

consciences of men, read them but little, and quote no writ- 
ings but those of the new casuists. Consult Diana, in the 
beginning of whose numerous works is inserted a list of two 
hundred and ninety-six authors, the most ancient of whom 
is about eighty years old." <*Is not this the period of the 
foundation of your society?'' <*Thereabouts. That is to 
say, as soon as you made your appearance in the world, St. 
Augustin, St. Chrysostom, St Aaibrose, St. Jerom, and 
others, were obliged to withdraw. But may 1 at least be 
informed of the names of their successors? Who are these 
new authors?" **Who? — able and celebrated men; such as 
V^illalobos, Conink, Llamas, Achokier, Dealkozer, Delia- 
crux, Venacruz, Ugolin, Tambourin, Fernandez, Martinez, 
Suarez, Henriquez, Vasquez, Lopez, Gomez. Sanchez, de 
Vechis, de Grasses, de Grassalis, de Pitigianis, de Gra- 
phseis, Squilanti, Bizozeri, B areola, de Bobadilla, Bisbe, 
Simancha, Perez de Lara, Aldretta, Lorca, de Scarcia, 
Quaranta, Scophra, Pedrezza, Cabrezza, Dias, de Clava- 
sis, Villagut, Adam a Manden, Tribarus, Binsfeld, Volfan- 
gi a Vorberg, Vostheri, StrevesdorfT " '^O my Fa- 
ther," exclaimed I, in great alarm, **were all these people 
Christians?'^ **How do you mean, Christians? Did not I 
state that by these men alone we at this moment govern all 
Christendom?" — I really felt extreme pity, but did not ex- 
press it. contenting myself with asking if all these authors 
were Jesuits. '*No," was his reply, *'but that is of no con- 
sequence; they have, notwithstanding, written many excel- 
lent things. Most of them, indeed, have borrowed from our 
authors, or have been copied from ours, but we are not 
punctilious; besides, they constantly quote and eulogize our 
authors. Thus Diana, who is not of our fraternity, in speak- 
ing of Vasquez, calls him the phoenix of wit, and elsewhere 
says, *that Vasquez alone is as good authority as all the 
world besides — instar omnium;^ on which account our Fa- 
thers frequently make use of this good Diana; for if you un- 
derstand our doctrine of probability, you will see that their 
belonging to another society is of no consequence: we are. 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 5/ 

on the contrary, gratified with others besides Jesuits, being 
able to render their opinions probable, so tliat all is not im- 
puted to us. On this principle, whenever any author ad- 
vances a probability, we have a right to avail ourselves of 
it, if we think proper, by the doctrine of probable opinions, 
or we may reject it if the author be not attached, to our so- 
ciety." ^^Oh, I understand it all," said I: ^<all are wel- 
come but the ancient Fathers, and you remain in full pos- 
session of the field: you may take any direction and ramble 
wherever you please. But I foresee three or four prodigious 
inconveniences, barriers of the most formidable description, 
to obstruct your progress." <<And pray," said the Father, 
all astonishment, '^what are they?" '*The holy Scripture, 
the Popes, and Councils — whom you cannot contradict, and 
who all agree with the Gospel." **Oho! is that all? You 
really terrified me. Do you imagine that so obvious a case 
as this has not been foreseen and provided for? I am real- 
ly astonished that you should think we are opposed to Scrip- 
ture, to Popes, and to Councils. You shall have perfect 
demonstration to the contrary. I should be excessively cha- 
grined that you should suppose we are deficient in our du- 
ty; but you have doubtless adopted this idea from certain 
opinions of our Fathers, which seem to controvert their own 
decisions, though it is not so in reality. But to explain 
this agreement, requires more leisure than I can at present 
command. I trust you will not be unedified by what has 
passed: if you will return to-morrow, I will undertake to 
furnish you with complete information on the subject." 

Thus ended the conference, and here I close my letter. — 
I flatter myself you will find enough to afford you amuse- 
ment till ray next communication. 

I am, &c.'* 



LETTER VI. 

The different Artifices of the Jesuits to evade the authority of 
the Gospel, the Councils and the Popes. Consequences 
which follow from their Doctrine of Probability. Their 
Abatements in favor of the Clergy t Monks, and Servants. 
History of John d*Alba. 

Paris, April 10, 1656. 

Sir : At the close of my last letter, I informed you that 
the good Father Jesuit promised to show me the manner in 
which the casuists reconciled the contradictory aspect of 
their opinions, and the decisions of Popes, Councils, and 
Scripture. The following is a recital of his statements.—- 
He began thus : 

** One method of reconciling these apparent contradic- 
tions is, by the interpretation given to a term. For exam- 
ple, Pope Gregory XIV. declares, that assassins are un- 
worthy of enjoying the protection of a church, and that 
they ought to be dragged out by force : our twenty-four 
elders say, tr. 6, ex. 4, n. 27 : * Whoever kills another in 
a treacherous manner, does not incur the penalty of this 
bull.' This, you perceive, is contradictory, but by inter- 
preting the word assassin, the passages are made to agree : 
thus, 'are not assassins unworthy of enjoying the privilege 
of church protection ?' Yes, by the bull of Gregory XIV. 
But, by the term assassifis, we understand those who have 
received money to kill another in a treacherous manner. — 
Hence those who have not committed lUurder for hire or 
reward, but only to oblige their friends, are not called as- 
sassins.'^ Thus we are exhorted in the Gospel, ** to give 
alms out of our abundance;" but many casuists have dis- 
covered a mode of exonerating even the most opulent per- 
sons from the obligation of alms-giving. This will, per- 
haps, appear to you a contradiction : but it is easy to re- 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 59 

concile it, by an iHterpretation of tlie term abundance or 
superfluity^ so that it can scarcely ever be shown that a 
person possesses it. The learned Vasques has done this in 
liis treatise on alms-giving, c. 4. **That which is accu- 
mulated for the purpose of aggrandizing our own condi- 
tion, or that of relatives, is not called superfluity; for which 
reason, people can seldom be said to possess superfluity, 
not even kings themselves. " Diana, in quoting these 
words, for he usually builds upon the foundation of our Fa- 
thers, deduces this strong conclusion : Hhat as to the ques- 
tion whether the rich are obliged to give alms out of their 
superfluity, although t'he affirmation be theoretically true, 
it will scarcely, if ever, happen to be necessary in prac- 
tice. ' 

*'This," I observed, <*is certainly a fair inference from 
the doctrine of Vasquez; but if it be objected that, according 
to Vasquez, salvation would be as sure in refusing to give 
alms and retaining a moderate degree of ambition, as, ac- 
cording to the Gospel, it is in renouncing ambition in order 
to be capacitated to dispense alms, what reply is to be gi- 
ven?" '*That both these ways are equally sure, according 
to the same Gospel; the one, in the most literal and the most 
obvious sense; the other, according to the same Gospel, as 
interpreted by Vasquez. Hence you perceive the utility of 
the interpretative system. But when the terras are so plain 
as to admit of no such explanation, we make use of the con- 
sideration 0^ favourable circumstances; as, for example, the 
Popes have excommunicated all monks who leave off* their 
habit, but our twent^'-four elders speak in this manner, tr. 
6. ex. 7. n. 103: 'Upon what occasions may a monk quit 
his habit without incurring excommunication?' Many are 
stated; amongst others, this one: *if he quit it for any dis- 
graceful reason, as to turn pick-pocket, to go incog, to pla- 
ces of ill fame, intending speedily to resume it.' It is ob- 
vious that the papal bulls do not refer to cases of this de- 
scription.'" 

I was scarcely able to give credit to this representation. 



60 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

and requested to have it pointed out in the original title, 
where I noticed ''The Practice according to the School of 
the Society of Jesus — Praxis in Societatis Jesu SchoW — 
where it was written, Si habitum dimittat ut furetur occulte 
vel fornicetur. He showed me the same thing in Diana, TJt 
eat incognitus ad lupanar. "And how is it, Father," pro- 
ceeding ^vith my inquiries, "how is it that they are releas- 
ed from excommunication in this particular instance?" — 
"And do you not really comprehend this?" replied he. "Do 
you not see how scandalous it would be to surprise a monk 
in such a situation in the habit of religion? Have you ne- 
ver heard of the answer to the first bull, contra sollicitantes? 
And in what manner the twenty-four elders in a chapter of 
the school praxis of our society explain the bull of Pius V. 
contra clericos^^' &c. ? "No — really I know nothing of it." 
^'Then you have not read Escobor?" "I never could meet 
with him, Father, till yesterday, and that after great in- 
quiries." "I know not," said he, "how it happens; but 
of late every body is in search of Escobar. What I men- 
tioned is in tr. 1- ex. 8. n. 102. Examine it at your lei- 
sure, and you will fkid a splendid specimen of the manner 
of interpreting bulls favourably." 

1 perused the subject that very evening, but the state- 
ments are so revolting that I dare not repeat them. 

The good Father proceeded — **You are now aware of the 
use we make o? favourable circumstances: but some are so 
precise, that it is impossible to reconcile contradictions by 
means of them, so that you are ready to believe they do in 
some degree exist. For instance^ — three Popes have decid- 
ed, 'that the monks who are obliged, by a particular vow, 
to a life of abstinence, cannot be dispensed from it, though 
they become bishops;' yet Diana states, *that, notwithstand- 
ing these decisions, they are dispensed.'" "Well, Fa- 
ther, how is this made to accord?" "By the most acute of 
all the new methods, and the most ingenious — probability! 
I will explain it. The affirmative and negative of most 
opinions^ as you were shown the other day, liaveeach some 



PROVINCIAl LETTERS. 61 

probability; and enough in the judgment of our doctors to 
be followed with a safe conscience. It is not that the pro 
and the eon can be at the same time true, and in the same 
sense; this is manifestly impossible; but it is only that they 
are at the same time probable and consequently safe. On 
thi^ principle, our good friend Diana speaks in p. 5. tr. 13. 
r. 39: ^I reply to the decision of the three Popes, which is 
contrary to my opinion, that, by adhering to the affirmative, 
they have given a statement which is in fact probable ac- 
cording to my judgment; but it does not follow that the ne- 
gative may not also be probablef and in the same treatise, 
r. 65. on another point, in which he again differs from a 
Pope, he says, *the Pope affirms this as head of the church, 
I admit; but he does so only within the sphere of the proba- 
bility of his own opinion.' You perceive that this is no dis- 
paragement to the sentiments of the Popes, otherwise it 
would not be tolerated at Rome, where Diana is in the ut- 
most credit. For he does not affirm that the decision of 
the Popes is not probable, but, allowing their opinion the 
utmost extent of probability, he only maintains that the con- 
trary is also probable." <*This is very respectful, "observ- 
ed I. *'Yes; and it is far more subtle than the reply of 
Father Bauny, wiien a censure was passed upon his books 
at Rome; for he was provoked by the furious persecution of 
Mr. Hallier, to say, <What has the censure of Home to do 
with that of France?^ Hence it is sufficiently clear, that 
either by the interpretation of terms, by the observation of 
favourable circumstances, or by the double probability oipro 
and €071, all these pretended contradictions, which so alarm- 
ed you, may always be reconciled without injury to the de- 
cisions of Scripture, Councils, or Popes." 

<*Reverend Father," said I, ^'how happy is the world to 
be blessed with such guides as you! How useful are these 
probabilities! I never discovered till now, the reason of 
your taking so much pains to inculcate, that a single doc- 
tor, if he be grave, can make an opinion probable; that the 
contrary may also be probable; and then pro or con may 



62 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

be chosen as is most agreeable to the individual, though 
he do not believe it to be true, and with such a safe 
conscience that a confessor who should refuse absolution 
upon the credit of these casuists, would be in a state of 
damnation. Hence I understand that a single casuist may, 
at his pleasure, construct new rules of morality, and* tlis- 
pose of every thing relativ^e to moral conduct, according 
to his own fancy." **No," said he, "what you state must 
be taken with some restriction. But observe this. It is 
our method by which you will trace the progress of a new 
opinion from its hirth to its maturity. The grave doctor 
who invented it, ushers it into the world, dispersing it 
abroad as a seed which is to take deep root. In this state 
it is tender, but time ripens it by degrees. On this account 
Diana, who has introduced many sentiments of this nature, 
says, in one passage, *1 advance this opinion; but because it 
is new, I leave it to the operation of time to ri])en. — relinquo 
tempori maturandam. Thus, in a few years, it insensibly 
gains strength, and after the lapse of a considerahle period, 
it becomes authorized by the tacit approbation of the church, 
according to that grand maxim of Father Bauny, *when an 
opinion is advanced by some casuists, and not opposed by 
the church, it is an evidence that the church approves it.' 
Upon this very principle he gives authority to one of his 
own sentiments, in his treatise 6. p. 312." *'What, Father, 
is the church to be responsible for all the abuse she suffers, 
and all the errors which pervade the volumes which she 
does not formally censure?" **0h, you must contend that 
point with Father Bauny: I merely," said he, *'recite his 
words: you must not make me the party in the debate. It 
will be of no avail to dispute against /ac^. 1 stated that 
when time had so matured an opinion, it becomes complete- 
ly probable and sure. Hence the learned Caramuel, in a 
letter in which he dedicates his fundamental theology to 
Diana, says, Hhat this great man has made many opinions 
probable, which were not so before,' qiia^, antea non eranU 
and therefore it is no sin to follow them, though once it was 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 63 

sinful,— ^/flTM mm peccanU licet ante peccaverint.'^ **Really, 
Father, there is much to be obtained from you doctors. 
What then, of two persons who do the same things, shall 
the one w ho is unacquainted with your doctrine, commit sin, 
wliile the other who knows it, is innocent? Does your doc- 
trine justify at the same time that it instructs? The law of 
God, according to St. Paul, included all under sin, yours 
makes them almost all innocent. Pray, Father, do give me 
minute and full information, for I cannot leave you till you 
have explained the principal maxims which your casuists 
have established." 

'«Ala§!" exclaimed the Jesuit, "our chief design was to 
authorize no other maxims than those of the Gospel in their 
utmost strictness: and it is sufficiently evident by the regu- 
lation of our own conduct, that if we allow of any remiss- 
ness in others, it is rather attributable to our condescension 
than to our plan. We are in fact compelled to it: mankind 
are now so corrupt, that being unable to bring them to our 
principles, we must bring our principles to them. They 
would otherwise leave us, nay worse, they would become 
totally abandoned. Our casuists have therefore found it 
necessary to consider to what vices they are most inclined 
in every condition, that they might prescribe such agree- 
able rules, without offending against truth, as to render the 
compromise perfectly easy. The capital object which our 
society has in view to promote religion, is to avoid disgust- 
ing any one, or producing despondency. We have maxims 
therefore adapted to persons of every description, to bene- 
ficiaries, priests, monks, gentlemen, servants, rich trades- 
men, bankrupts, poor women of piety, and the reverse, 
married persons and libertines; in short, nothing has escap- 
ed our foresight." **That is," interposed I, **you have 
provided for the clergy, the nobility, and the commonality. 
I should be happy to hear these maxims." 

**Well, then," said the good Father, '4et us begin with 
the benejiciaries. Your are aware of the traffic in benefices, 
which is so prevalent at the present day; and were we to 



64 



PROVIJfCIAL LETTERS. 



« 




appeal to the statements of St. Thomas and the ancients, 
we should find many Simonists in the church. On this ac- 
count, it was deemed very necessary that our Fathers 
should make certain prudent abatements and qualifications, 
as Valentia, one of the four beasts of Escobar, has taught 
It is at the close of a long dissertation where he suggests 
many expedients, of which, in my opinion, the following is 
the best, p. 2039. tom. 3. ^If a person give a temporal 
possession for a spiritual possession, that is, money for a 
living, and give the money as the price of the benefice, it is 
a manifest simony^ but if it be given as the motive to induce 
the patron to confer it, it is not simony, though he who con- 
fers it, have the pecuniary consideration alone in view.' 
Tannerus, who is also one of our society, speaks in a simi- 
lar manner in his third volume, p. 1519. though he acknow- 
ledges *that St. Thomas is of a contrary opinion^ peremp- 
torily declaring, that it is always a simoniacal act to give a 
spiritual office in exchange for a temporal consideration, if 
the latter be the end in view." By this means we prevent 
an infinity of simoniacal transactions : for who would be so 
wicked, when he offers his money for a benefice, to do it as 
the price and not as the motive to influence its bestowment? 
No one, surely, can act so criminally." 

''I perfectly agree with you," said I; "every body has suffi- 
cient grace to make such a bargain." **Yes, certainly: and 
you see how we have compromised the matter with regard to 
beneficiaries. As to the priests^ we have a variety of maxims 
in their favour; for example, this of our twenty-four elders, 
tr. 1. ex. 11. n. 96: *Can a priest, who has received mo- 
ney for saying a mass, take money a second time for the 
same mass?' 'Yes,' says Filiutius, *by applying that part 
of the sacrifice which belongs to him as priest, to the per- 
son who pays the second donation, provided he does not re- 
ceive the price of a whole mass, but of a part only, as for 
instance, one third,' " <«Very good, Father; then here we 
have a specimen of the pro and con, where both* SLre probable: 
for what you assert as such, cannot fail of being so upon 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 65 

the authorities of Filiutius and Escobar. But leaving it 
within its sphere of probability, it appears to me that the con- 
trary might, with very good evidence, be maintained. 
When the church allows the poor priests to take money for 
their masses, upon the principle, that they who serve the 
altar, should live by the altar, it is not meant that they 
should exchange the sacrifice for money, still less that they 
should deprive themselves of all those graces of which they 
ought to be the first recipients. I might go further, and 
say with St. Paul, Hhey are obliged to offer the sacrifice, 
first for themselves, and afterwards for the people:' and 
thus they are allowed to associate others in the benefits of 
the sacrifice, but not voluntarily to renounce them all for 
themselves, and bestow them on another for a third part of 
the mass^ that is to say, for four or ^\g pence. In truth, 
Father, however little grave I might be, I could make this 
opinion probable,^' ^'Doubtless, for there is no great diffi- 
culty in it; the thing is already evident. The difficulty is 
to find a probability in opinions manifestly contradictory to 
those which are true. This is the achievement for superior 
men to accomplish. Father Bauny excels in this, and it is 
truly delightful to see how this learned casuist penetrates 
the pro and the con of a question which relates to the priests, 
and finds reasons on either side, with astonishing skill and 
subtlety. He says in his tenth treatise, p. 474 : *It is im- 
possible to make a law to oblige curates to say mass every 
day, because such a law would undoubtedly expose them 
(haud dubie) to the danger of saying it sometimes in a state 
of mortal sin:' but he adds, in the same book, p. 441 : 'the 
priests who take money to say mass every day, ought to say 
it every day, and cannot excuse themselves by alleging that 
they are not always properly prepared for it, because they 
can at any time perform an act of contrition, and if they do 
not, it is their own fault, and not the sin of the persons who 
hire them to say mass.' In order further to remove every 
possible hinderance, he resolves this question also in the 
same treatise, q. 32. p. 457: 'Can a priest say mass on the 
9 



66 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

very day he is committing a mortal sin, and one of the 
worst description, if he makes a previous confession?* 'JVo,* 
says Villalobos, ^ou account of his impurity.* Sanchius, 
however, says yes, and without any offence, and this latter 
opinion I hold to be safe, and it ought to be followed in 
practice — et tuta et sequenda in praxi*'^ 

<'Do you really, Father," said I, < ^affirm, that this opin- 
ion ought to be followed in practice? What, ought a priest 
who has perpetrated such an enormity, to dare to approach 
the altar on the same day, because Father Bauny says so? 
And ought he to pay no deference to the ancient laws of the 
church, which interdict from the sacrifice forever, or at 
least for a very considerable time, the priest that commits 
such iniquities, rather than attend to the novel opinions of 
the casuists, who re-admit him the very day of his trans- 
gressions!" *^ Where is your memory?" answered the Fa- 
ther: *'did not I before state, that according to our Fathers, 
Cellot and Reginaldus, *in morality we ought not to follow 
the ancients, but the new casuists?'" **0 yes — I recollect 
it perfectly : but here is something more, in relation to the 
laws of the church." *'You are right; but you have not yet 
discovered this beautiful maxim of our Fathers, Hhe laws of 
the church lose their force, when they are no longer observ- 
ed — cum jam desuetudine abierunt/ as Filiutius says, tom, 
2. tr. 25. n. 33. We can surely see the present necessities 
of the church better than the ancients. Were we so austere 
as to banish our priests from the altar, you can easily com- 
prehend we should have fewer masses; but the multiplication 
of masses conduces so much to the glory of God and the 
good of souls, that I will venture to affirm, with Father 
Cellot, in his work upon the hierarchy, p. 611, printed at 
Rouen, 'that there would not be too many priests, if not 
only every man and woman, were that possible, but all in- 
animate bodies, and even brute beasts — bruta animalia, 
could be metamorphosed into priests to celebrate mass.'" 

^I was so surprised at this extravagance, that I could not 
utter a syllable, so that he continued in a similar strain — 



PKOVINCIAL LETTERS. 67 

**But enough of the priests; let us, to avoid greater prolixi- 
ty, hasten to the monks. As their most pressing difficulty 
relates to the obedience they owe to their superiors, listen 
to the lenity of our Fathers. Thus speaks Castrus Palaiis 
of our society, Op, mor, p. 1. disp. 2, p. 6: *itis not disputed 
— non est controversial that a monk who has o, probable opin- 
ion in his favour, is not necessitated to obey his superior, 
though the superior may have a more probable opinion: for a 
monk is allowed to take the opinion which is most agree- 
able to himself — quse sibi gratior fiierit, as Sanchez ob- 
serves. And though the commandment of the superior be just, 
this does not compel obedience; for it is not just in every 
particular and respect — non undequaque juste preedpit, but 
only probably, so that you are only engaged to obey him 
probably, and you are disengaged probably — probabiliter ob- 
ligatus, et probabiliter deobligatus,'' *'Good Father, one 
cannot estimate too highly the glorious benefits resulting 
from this double probability !" **0h,' said he, *<they are 
great indeed; but to be brief, I will mention but a single pas- 
sage more, from the celebrated Molina, in favour of those 
monks who have been expelled from their monasteries for 
their irregularities. Our Father Escobar quotes it, tr. 6. 
ex. 7. n. Ill: *Melina assures us, that a m©nk expelled 
from his monastery, is not obliged to reform in order to re- 
turn, and that he is no longer bound by his vow of obedi- 
ence." *'So then. Father, these ecclesiastics enjoy a very 
fine liberty. Your casuists, I perceive, have treated them 
very kindly: they have really legislated as they would for 
themselves. I am afraid, how^ever, that people in other 
situations will not be so liberally treated: every one must 
look to himself.'' No," said he, '^they could not have ta- 
ken better care of themselves. The same indulgence has 
been extended to all, from the greatest to the least: but you 
lead me to point out our maxims in reference to servants.^^ 

^*We have fully considered the distress they must feel when 
they are conscientious, in the service of dissipated masters: 
for if they do not deliver all the messages intrusted to them, 



68 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

they must lose their situations^ and if they do, they hurt 
their consciences. Our twenty-four elders have thus pro- 
vided for their comfort, tr. 7. ex. 4. n. 223, stating the par- 
ticular services they may render with a safe conscience: *to 
carry letters and presents — open doors and windows — help 
their masters up to a window — ^liold the ladder while he 
climbs up — all these are permitted as things indifferent. It 
is true, as to holding the ladder, they should only do it 
when they are violently threatened if they refuse, for it is 
doing an injury to the master of a house to break in at the 
window. Is not all this very judicious?" <'I expected no- 
thing less," said I, **in a book deduced from four-and-twen- 
ty Jesuits." <^But our Father Bauny,'^ added he, ^<has 
taught servants how to render all these services very inno- 
cently, by having a view merely to the pecuniary reward 
they may gain, not to the sins themselves which they are re- 
quired to manage. This is well explained, in his Summary 
of Sins, p. 710, last edition: <Let confessors observe, that 
they must not absolve those servants who carry indecent 
messages, if they consent to the sins of their masters^ but 
they may do so if it be done for their own temporal advan- 
tage: and this, is easily accomplished; for why should they 
obstinately eensent to sins, of which they participate only 
the trouble!" And the same Blather Bauny has established 
this great maxim in favour of those who are not content with 
their wages, in his Summary, p. 213, 214, sixth edition: 
'May servants who complain of their wages, add to them, 
by swindling from their master's property, as much as they 
deem necessary to recompense their services? They may 
do it sometimes^ as when they are so poor in looking out for 
a situation, that they have been obliged to accept whatever 
offer was made them, wdiilst other servants of the same class 
gain more elsewhere.'" "That," I remarked, '4s exactly 
the case with John d'Alba." ''What John d'Alba? who do 
you mean?" "Have you then forgot, Father, what occur- 
red in this place in the year 1647? Pray where could you 
have been?" "Oh, I was then a teacher of cases of con- 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. ' 69 

science, in one of our colleges, at some distance from Paris." 
*<I see then you are not acquainted with the story; allow me 
to tell it you: it was related to me the other day by a person 
of veracity. He stated that this John d'Alba, a servant of 
your Fathers of the college of Clermont, in St. James's- 
street, not being satisfied with his wages, stole something to 
recompense himself. Your Fathers having detected the 
theft, they put him in prison, accused him of robbing the 
house, and, if my memory be correct, had him examined at 
Chatelet, the sixth of April, 1647. These details were men- 
tioned in order to authenticate it. This fellow, upon his ex- 
amination, confessed that he had taken some pewter plates, 
but maintained it was no theft, justifying himself by the doc- 
trine of Father Bauny, which he presented to his judges, 
with a piece written by one of your Fathers, under whom he 
had studied cases of conscience, and who taught him the 
same thing. Upon this, M. de Montrouge, one of the most 
considerable of the society, said, 'that he was not of opinion 
that the writings of these Fathers, containing such an unlaw- 
ful and pernicious doctrine, contrary to all laws, divine and 
human, adapted to ruin families, and authorise domestic 
thievery, were sufficient to absolve the delinquent; but that 
he thought this too faithful disciple, ought to be whipped 
before the gate of the college, by the common hangman^ 
who should, at the same time, burn the writings of these 
Fathers relating to theft, forbidding them to teach such a 
doctrine, upon pain of death.' Universal attention was 
excited to the result of this advice, which was fully ap- 
proved, when a circumstance happened to defer its execu- 
tion. The prisoner disappeared, nobody knew how; not a 
word more was said about the affair, and John d'Alba 
w^ent off without returning the plates. The narrator added, 
that the opinion of M. de Montrouge is registered at Chate- 
let, where it is accessable to any one's inspection. The 
company i)resent were mightily delighted." <<And pray," 
said the Father, "what amused them so wonderfully? What 
does all this amount to? I was speaking of the maxims of our 



70 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

casuists, and was just about to mention those which relate to 
gentlemen, and you must, forsooth, interrupt me with irrele- 
vant stories !' ^*0h. Father, this was only by the bye, and to 
intimate an important consideration attached to this sub- 
ject, which I find you have forgot in settling your doctrine 
of probability.'' "What then can be omitted by such skil- 
ful casuists?" <<It is this: you have indeed confirmed those 
who admit your probable opinions in their confidence, both 
towards God and conscience; for as you state, all is safe 
on the side of following a grave doctor, and you have em- 
boldened them, as it respects confessors, because you have 
obliged the priests to absolve them on a probable opinion, 
upon pain of committing a mortal sin: but you have not 
fortified them against their judges, so as to deliver them 
from the whip and the gallows, by following your proba- 
bilities. This is a capital defect." '^Thank you, Sir, 
this is true; but we have not the same power over the magis- 
trates as over the confessors, who are necessitated to refer 
to us in all cases of conscience; for we are the sovereign 
judges." "I understand you," said I, "but if on the one 
side you are the judges of the confessors, are you not on the 
other, the confessors of the judges? Your power is very 
extensive. Oblige them to absolve criminals that have a 
probable opinion, on pain of exclusion from the sacraments; 
that it may no longer happen, to the great contempt and 
scandal of the doctrine of probability, that those whom you 
make innocent in theory, are whipped and hanged in prac- 
tice ! How, without this measure, can you expect disciples ?" 
**True, true, this must be considered," said he — "I shall 
not forget it, but propose the subject to our Father Provin- 
cial. Still you might have reserved your advice for another 
opportunity, without interrupting me at the moment I was 
explaining our maxims in favour of gentlemen; and I shall 
now pass them over, unless you will engage to introduce no 
more stories. " 

Such is the whole of my communication for to-day, for one 
letter would be insufficient to relate all that I learned in this 
conversation. I am, &c. 



LETTER VII. 

On the Method of directing the Intention, The Permission to 
kill in defence of Honour and of Property, which is extend- 
ed to Priests and Friars. A Curious Question proposed by 
Caramuel, namely, whether the Jesuits may kill the Janse- 
nist^? 

Paris, April 25, 1656. 

Sir: Having pacified the good Father, who was a little 
disconcerted hy my narrative respecting John d'Alba, he re- 
sumed the conversation, on being assured that I would intro- 
duce no more stories of the same kind; and he spoke of the 
maxims of his casuists nearly in the following words: 

'*You know," said he, <Hhat the ruling passion in persons 
of this class, is the point of honour, by which they are perpet- 
ually impelled to those violent deeds which appear very con- 
trary to the spirit of Christianity, so that it would be neces- 
sary to exclude almost all of them from our confessionals, 
unless our Fathers had a little relaxed the rigour of religious 
requirements, in tenderness to human infirmities. But as 
they wished to adhere to the Gospel by fulfilling tl cir duty 
to God, and to the people of the world, by charity to their 
neighbour, it required all their penetration to devise JxpetU- 
ents for the adjustment of these things with so much nicety, 
that it might be possible for a person tcf defend and retrieve 
his honour according to the usual methods of the world, but 
without doing violence to conscience; and thus to preserve, 
in consistent union, two things apparently so opposite as re- 
ligion and honour. 

"But the execution of this design was as difiicult as the 
design itself was useful; and I believe you are sufficiently 
aware both of the greatness and difficulty of the undertak- 
ing." **It does astonish me," said I, coldly. "It astonish- 
es you ? I believe so, indeed; and it has astonished others. 



TQ PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

Are you ignorant that on the*one hand, the evangelical law 
commands not to render evil for evil, hut to leave vengeance 
to God — and on the other, that the laws of the world pro- 
hibit our enduring injuries, without demanding reparation, 
and frequently the death of one's enemies? Did you ever 
know any thing which appeared more contradictory? And 
yet, when I inform you that our Fathers have reconciled 
these opposites, you merely tell me you are astonished!" 
««Father, I did not fully explain myself. I should certain- 
ly have considered the thing impossible, if I did not feel per- 
suaded from what I have seen of your Fathers, that they 
can easily accomplish what to other men is impossible. 
This induces me to believe they may have discovered some 
expedient, which I am disposed to admire, even without 
knowing it, but which I beg you to reveal to me.'^ 

* 'Since this is your view," said he, "I cannot refuse your 
request. Understand, then, that this wonderful principle, 
consists in our grand method of directing the intention, the 
importance of which, in our system of morality, is such 
that I should almost venture to compare it to the doctrine of 
probability. You have already, in passing, seen some fea- 
i 5f . 3 of it in a few of the maxims already mentioned; for 
when I showed you how servants might, with a safe con- 
science, manage certain troublesome messages, did you not 
observe that it was simply taking off their intention from 
the jin itself, and fixing it on the advantage to be gained? 
liiis is what we term directing the intention. You saw, at the 
same time, that tho^ie who gave money to obtain benefices, 
would be really guilty of simony, without giving some such 
turn to the transaction. But, that you may judge of other 
cases, let me now exhibit this grand expedient in all its 
glory, in reference to the subject o£ murder, which it justifies 
in a thousand cases." 

"I already perceive" replied I, "that in this way, one 
may do any thing without exception." "You always go 
from one extreme to another," returned the Father; "jiray 
stop your impetuosity. To convince you that wc do not per- 



rROVINCIAJ. LKTTKUS. 7."> 

mit every thing, take this as a proof, that we never siifler 
the formal intention of sinning, for the sake of sinning, and 
whoever persists in liaving no other design in liis wicked- 
ness than wickedness itself, we instantly discard. This 
would be diabolical indeed, a rule without exception of age, 
sex, or quality. But when this abandoned disposition does 
not exist, we endeavour to make use of our method of di- 
recting the intention, which consists in proposing a lawful 
object as the end of an action. We exert, indeed, the ut- 
most of our power to dissuade men from doing what is for- 
bidden; but when we cannot prevent the action, we at least 
aim to purify the intention, making amends for the vice of 
the means by the purity of the end. Thus our Fathers have 
discovered a method of permitting those violent methods of 
defending their honour, to which gentlemen resort. It is 
only for them to renounce the intention of desiring revenge, 
which is criminal, and to substitute the desire of defending 
their honour, which our Fathers allow. In this manner 
they can discharge all their duty both to God and man : for 
they satisfy the world, by permitting their actions, and 
conform to the Gospel by purifying their intentions. We 
are obliged to our modern Fathers for these discoveries; the 
ancients knew nothing about them. Do you understand me 
now?" *^0 yes, perfectly well," said I; "you allow men 
the external and material action, and give to God the inter- 
nal and spiritual intention; and by this equitable division 
you aim to harmonize divine and human laws. But, Fa- 
ther, to speak the truth, I am a little distrustful of you, 
and question whether your authors go the same lengths with 
yourself." 

^*You wrong me," answered he; <*I advance nothing 
which I am unable to prove, and by such a variety of cita- 
tions, that their number, authority, and arguments, will fill 
you with astonishment. To sliow you the agreement which 
our Fathers have established between the maxims of the 
Gospel, and tliose of the world, by this reference to the in- 
tention, I beg your attention to Father Rcginaldus. in 
10 



74 PllOVINCIAL LETTERS. 

Praxiy b. 21. sect. 62, p. 260: 'Private persons areprolubit- 
ed from revenging themselves; for it is said by St. Paul, in 
the twelfth chapter of the Romans, 'Recompense to no man 
evil for evil,' and again, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, 
saith the Lord.' In addition to which, consider what is 
said in the Gospel on the forgiveness of offences in the sixth 
and eighteenth chapters of Matthew." Undoubtedly, Fa- 
ther, if after this any thing be advanced besides what is con- 
tained in Scripture, it would not be amiss to know it. What 
is the conclusion to which he comes?" "It is this," said 
hej 'from all these considerations it appears, that a warrior 
may instantly pursue a wounded enemy, not indeed with 
the intention of rendering evil for evil, but to maintain his 
own honour: JVon ut malum pro maloreddat, sed ut conservet 
honor em,^ 

"Do you observe, then, how careful they are to forbid 
the intention to render evil for evil, because Scripture con- 
demns it? Mark Lessius rfe J%si. lib. 2, cap. 9, sect. 12: 
'He who receives a blow must not indulge a spirit of re- 
venge, but he may cherish a wish to avoid disgrace, and for 
this purpose repel the assault, even with his sword — etiam 
cum gladio*^ We are so far from permitting the desire of 
revenge against our enemies, that our Fathers prohibit a 
wish for their death, arising merely from an emotion of 
hatred. Thus our Father Escobar writes, tr. ex. 5, n. 145: 
'If your enemy be disposed to hurt you, you ought not to 
wish for his death through hatred, but you may do it to 
avoid injury;' and in accordance with this principle, our 
great Hurtado de Mendoza says, 'it is proper for us to pray 
God speedily to inflict death upon those who are preparing 
to persecute us, if we cannot otherwise escape.' " 

"My reverend Father," said I, "the church has forgotten 
to frame a petition among her prayers suited to this mo- 
tive." "0, but," he replied, "she has not introduced every 
thing that may become the subject of a request to God. Be- 
sides, this could not have been inserted, for the sentiment 
itself, is of more recent origin than the Breviary. You are 



PROVINCIAI. T.ETTERS. 75 

a bad chronologist; but not to enter upon tliis subject, listen 
to the following passage of Father Gaspar Hurtado, de Sub. 
pecc. diff, 9. quoted by Diana, p. 5, tr. 14, r. 99; he is one of 
Escobar's four-and-twenty elders: *An incumbent may, 
without being guilty of a mortal crime, wish for the death 
of the person who is a pensioner upon his benefice; and a 
son for that of his father, and rejoice in it whenever it hap- 
pens, provided that it is only on account of the property 
that accrues to him, not from any personal hatred.'" 

*'0 Father," said I, '^what admirable fruit does this di- 
rection of the intention produce ! Really its power is won- 
derfully extensive; but there are certain cases exceedingly 
perplexing, yet very necessary for these gentlemen." **Let 
us hear what they are," said he. ^^Show me, then, witli 
all this direction of the intention, that it is lawful io fight a 
dueV "Oh! our great Hurtado de Mendoza shall satisfy 
you in a moment, in a passage cited by Diana, p. 5, tr. 14, 
r. 99: *When a gentleman who is challenged to a duel, is 
known to be not remarkably pious, but daily commits sins 
without the least scruple, plainly evincing that his refusal 
to accept the challenge, does not proceed from the fear of 
God, but from timidity, he may be called a chicken, and 
not a man — gallina et non vir. He may, in order to pre- 
serve his honour, proceed to the appointed place, not indeed 
wdth the express intention of fighting, but only of defending 
himself, if his antagonist should unjustly attack him; and 
this action would be in itself altogether indifferent. For 
what harm would there be in going into a field and walking 
about, waiting for a person, and defending oneself against 
any attack ?" Thus he does not, in any respect, commit sin, 
because here is no acceptance of a duel, the intention being 
directed to other circumstances: for the acceptance of a duel 
consists in the express intention of fighting, which is by no 
means the case with such an individual." 

<*FatIier," said I, ^'you have not kept your word: this is 
not properly to permit duelling; on the contrary, this writer 
so far considers it forbidden, tiiat to render it allowable, he 



76 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

avoids caHiiig it by that name." ''Ho! ho! you begin to 
penetrate deeply into these subjects; I am quite delighted: 
still I may say that enough is allowed to all who wish to en- 
gage in duels. But as you require a direct answer, our 
Father Layman shall furnish it, who permits this practice 
in so many words, providing only that the person direct his 
intention solely to the preservation of his honour or his for- 
tune: 1. 3, p. 3, c. 3, n. 2 and 3: 'If a soldier in the army, 
or a gentleman at court, find that he shall inevitably lose 
his honour or his fortune, should he refuse to accept a chal- 
lenge, I do not see how a person can be condemned for ac- 
cepting it in his own defence." Petrus Hurtado speaks ex- 
actly in the same manner as quoted by our celebrated Esco- 
bar, tr. 1, ex. 7, n. 96 and 98: 'A man may fight a duel 
even to defend his goods, if there be no other way of pre- 
serving them, because every one has a right to defend his 
goods, even by killing his enemy.' " Here I was all admi- 
ration, to see that the piety of the king was employed in 
prohibiting and banishing duelling out of the states and the 
piety of the Jesuits was engaging all their subtlety to per- 
mit and authorize it in the churchJ 

But the good Father was proceeding so fast, it was im- 
possible to stop him — "Sanchez (pray observe what great 
authors I quote) goes still further: for he not only allows a 
man to accept but to give a challenge, if he direct his inten- 
tion aright. Our Escobar agrees with him in this, n. 97." 
"If this be the fact, then I shall abandon his tuition; but I 
can never believe he has written such a thing till I see it." 
"Read it, then, yourself," said the Father, pointing out 1. 
2, c. 39, n. 7, in the moral theology of Sanchez: 'It is per- 
fectly reasonable to say, that a man may fight a duel to 
save his life, his honour, or his goods, if there be any con- 
siderable quantity of them, when it is apparent that his ad- 
versary has an evil design unjustly to rob him of them 
by suits at law and chicanery; and there is no other way of 
preserving them. Navarrus well says in such a case he 
may accept or send a cliallenge — licet acceptnre et offerre 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 77 

duelhim. A person may also kill an enemy secretly, and 
when this can be done, so as to get clear out of the affair, 
it is far better than fighting a duel; because by tliis means 
he avoids every evil consequence; on the one hand, the ex- 
posure of his own life to hazard, and on the other, par- 
taking of the crime of his enemy, which he must do in a 
duel." 

<*This, Father," said I, "is a sort of pious ambush; but, 
pious as it is, it is wStill an ambush, for a man is allowed to 
kill his enemy in a treacherous manner, ^^ '*Did I say that 
one man might kill another in a treacherous manner? God 
forbid: I said he might kill him secretly, and hence you in- 
fer he may do it treacheroushj, as if these were one and the 
same thing! Attend to Escobar, and then give your opin- 
ion, tr. 6, ex. 4, n. 26: *It may be called killing treacher- 
ously, when a man slays another who had not any reason to 
suspect him. Hence, he who slays an enemy, cannot be 
said to kill him treacherously, though he perpetrated the 
deed by lying in wait or stabbing him — licet 'per insidias, 
aut a tergopercutiat;' and in the same treatise, n. 56: * Who- 
ever kills his enemy after a reconciliation, and under a pro- 
mise no more to attempt his life, is not said absolutely to 
kill him in a treacherous manner, as there had been no very 
strict friendship subsisting between them — arctior amidtia.* 
You see by this explanation, that you are quite unacquaint- 
ed even wdth the signification of the terms in use, and yet 
you presume to talk like a learned divine." **Well, I must 
acknowledge," said I, *'this is new to me; and from this de- 
finition it should seem that it is not possible to kill a man 
treacherously: for no one surely ever thought of destroying 
any but his enemies! But, passing this, one may, ac- 
cording to Sanchez, kill a false accuser, I do not say treach- 
erously, but only by stabbing him behind?^' <^Yes, but by 
rightly directing ijour intention; — you always forget tlie 
main point. Molina maintains the same sentiment, torn. 
6, tr. 3, disp. 12: and our learned Rcginaldus, 1. 21, c. 5. 
n. 57: *It is allowable to kill the false witnesses brought 



78 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

against us:' and, finally, according to our great and illus- 
trious Fathers Tannerus and Emanuel Sa, we may not only 
kill the false witnesses, but the judge also, if he act in con- 
cert with them. Mark his words, tr. 3, disp. 4, q. 8, n. 
83: *Sotus and Lessius affirm, that it is not allowable to kill 
the false witnesses and the judge who conspires with them 
to put an innocent person to death, but Emanuel Sa and 
other authors very properly disallow such a sentiment, at 
least in point of conscience.* In the same place, he states 
that both witnesses and judge may be killed." <<Father, I 
am now quite sufficiently acquainted with your principle 
of directing the intention; but I am desirous of understand- 
ing also the consequences, and all the instances in which this 
method gives authority to kill. To avoid mistakes, let us 
recur to what you have already stated— for all equivocation 
here is extremely dangerous. It is not allowable to kill 
another, but when it is very opportune and upon a good pro- 
bable opinion. You have assured me, that, by rightly di- 
recting the intention, one may, according to your Fathers, 
for the purpose of preserving one's honour, or even one's 
possessions, accept a duel, sometimes give a challenge, kill 
a false accuser secretly, and his witnesses with him, and 
even the corrupt judge who favours them; and you have fur- 
ther represented that he who receives a box on the ear, 
may repair the injury by the sword, but without a spirit of 
revenge. But, Father, you have not told me to what length 
he may proceed." *^0h! you can scarcely be mistaken in 
that point, because he may go as far as to kill another. 
This is fully proved by our learned Henriquez, 1. 14, c. 10, 
n. 3; as well as others of our Fathers, quoted by Escobar, 
tr. 1. ex. 7. n. 48, in the following words: *It is allowable 
to kill a person who gives you a box on the ear, though he 
run away, provided you can divest yourself of hatred and 
revenge, and do not prepare the way for murders in exces- 
sive numbers and injurious to the state:' the reason is, that 
one may as well run after him who has robbed us of our 
honour, as after him who has stolen property; for though 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 



79 



your honour may not be in the hands of your enemy as your 
clothes may be, it may nevei'theless be recovered in a simi- 
lar manner? by displaying such evidences of greatness and 
authority, as may command respect. In fact, is not he who 
has received a blow, reputed to be without honour till he has 
killed his enemy?'* 

This was so shocking, that I could scarcely contain my- 
self; but, in order to be master of the wiiole subject, I per- 
mitted him to proceed thus — '<Nay, further, you may kill 
the person who only intends to give you a blow, if there be 
no other means of avoiding it. This is one of the most com- 
mon maxims in our Fathers; for example, Azor, Inst mor; 
part 3, p. 105; he is one of our twenty-four elders : <Is it al- 
lowable for a man of honour to kill the person who intends 
to give him a blow or a stroke with his cane? Some say 
no; and assign as a reason, that a neighbour's life is more 
important than personal honour: besides that, it is cruel to 
kill a man merely to avoid a box on the ear. But others 
affirm that it is allowable, and I most certainly think it ^ro- 
bahle, when it is the only means of escaping such an affront; 
otherwise the honour of the innocent would be perpetually 
exposed to the malice of the insolent.' Our great Filiutius^ 
advances the same opinion, tom. 2, tr. 29, c 5, n. 50, and 
Father Hereau, in his writings upon the subject of homicide, 
Hurtado de Mendoza, disp. 170, sect. 16, § 137, and Becan, 
Soni' tom. 19, 64, dehomidd, and our Fathers Flahaut and 
le Court, in their writings, which the university has endea- 
voured, but in vain, to suppress, and Escobar, in the same 
place, n. 48 — all agree in the same doctrine. It is indeed 
so generally maintained, that Lessius decides upon it as un- 
contested by any casuist, 1. 2, c. 9, n. 70. He cites a great 
number who aver this opinion, and not an individual that 
opposes it, mentioning (n. 77) even Peter Navarre, who, 
speaking generally upon the subject of affronts, of which a 
box on the ear is one of the most insulting, declares, in con- 
formity with the universal consent of the casuists, that ex 
sententid omnium licet contumeliosum ocddere, si aliter ed in- 



so PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

jurid arceri nequit. Are you satisfied ? Will you have any 
thing more?" 

^^Thank you, Father," said Ij *<I have already had too 
much." But, desirous of seeing hov^ far this damnahle 
doctrine would lead, I added, ^^Pray, would it not he allow- 
able to kill a man for something less than a blow? Cannot 
you so direct my intention that I may kill another for a 
lie?" <<Yes, surely, according to Father Baldelle, L 3, 
disp. 24, n. 24, quoted by Escobar in the same place, n. 
49: *It is lawful to kill any one who says you lie, if he can 
be stopped by no other means;' and the sentiment of our Fa- 
thers is, that you may kill a person in the same manner for 
slander: for Lessius, whom Father Hereau, with many 
others, follows word for word, in the place already intro- 
duced, says, <If you aim to ruin my reputation, by calumni- 
ating me before persons of honour, and I cannot prevent it 
by any other means than killing you, may I do so? Yes — 
such is the concurrent opinion of the modern authors, even 
though the reports you circulate be true, but so secretly as 
to be undetected by the usual proceedings of law. — Observe 
the proof. If when you attempt to take away my honour 
by giving me a blow, I may prevent it by force of arms, the 
same kind of defence is allowable when you aim to do me 
the same injury with your tongue. Moreover, we may pre- 
vent affronts — therefore we may prevent slander. Lastly, 
honour is dearer than life; but it is lawful to kill another in 
defence of life; therefore it is equally so to kill in defence of 
honour." This is sound, logical argument. It is not talk 
and rant, but demonstration ! And this great author Les- 
sius shows, in the same place, n. 78, that it is allowable to 
kill a person even for a simple motion or gesture in sign of 
contempt. *One may attack,' says he, ^and take away a 
person's honour, in a A^ariety of ways against wliich it would 
be highly proper he should defend himself; as when you are 
threatened with a stroke of a stick, or a box on the ears, or 
if you should be insulted witli opprobrious language or con- 
temptuous gestures — swe per signa*^' 



PROTTWrTAL LETTERS. 81 

^*I perceive, then, my good Father, that yon have done 
every thing tliat conld he wislicd to shelter a man's lionour 
from violation, but still his life is exposed, if one may kill 
another with a good conscience, merely for slander or con- 
temptuous treatment." ''True; but the vigilance and cau- 
tion of our Fathers is such, that they have discovered a me- 
thod of preventing the practice of this doctrine upon insig- 
nificant occasions. They say that this must not be univer- 
sally practised, practice vise probari jmtest: and tlie reason is 

obvious" "Yes, yes, I know the reason iicrfcctly well," 

said I, "it is because the law^ of God forbids murder." 
"Oh! by no means, the reason is quite different: they feel it 
to be admissible in conscience and regarding truth in it- 
self." "Why forbid it then?" "Pray," exclaimed the Fa- 
ther, "pray hear me: if people were allowed to kill others 
merely for detraction, we should depopulate kingdoms in an 
instant. Attend to our Reginaldus, 1. 21. n. 63. p. 260: 
'Although the opinion that a man may be killed for a slan- 
der, be not destitute of prohability in theory, yet the reverse 
must be foUow^ed in practice: for it is always necessary to 
seek the welfare of a state while resorting to measures of 
self-defence. But it is obvious, that by killing every body 
in such an unqualified manner, there would be too great a 
mimber of murders.' Lessius expresses the same senti- 
ment — 'We must be careful that the practice of this maxim 
do not become injurious to a state; in that case it must not 
be allowed — tunc enim non est permittendus.' " 

"How, Father! is your prohibition founded solely on po- 
litical views, and are those of a religious kind disregarded? 
Few, alas I will stop here, especially when under the strong 
excitement of passion. For it may seem probable, that the 
removal of a wicked person from a state, is by no means 
detrimental to its interests." "True, and our Father Fi- 
liutius assigns this very reason in conjunction with another 
of very considerable importance, tr. 29. c. 3. n. 51: 'A per- 
son may be capitally punished for killing others on that ac- 
count.'" "I told you, Father, that you would never do 
11 



82 PROYINCIAL LETTERS. 

anything to the purpose, unless the judges were in your fa- 
vour.'* ^*The judges," said he, *^who cannot search into 
the heart, can give no decision hut from the evidence of the 
outward action, whilst we chiefly regard the intention. 
Hence our maxims sometimes differ a little from theirs,'* 
*<Be that as it may, Father, the inference deducible from 
yours is clear, that, independently of any injury to a state, 
one may kill slanderers without violating conscience, if it 
can be done without endangering one's person. But after 
providing so w^ell for honour, have you no security for pro^- 
erty? I am aware this is an inferior affair; it is however of 
some consideration. It seems to me that it would be pos- 
sible to direct the intention so as to authorise the killing af 
a person for the sake of preserving it." * 'Surely," said he; 
<<and I have already touched upon an idea that illustrates 
this permission. All our casuists agree in allowing you to 
kill a man who attempts a robbery of your goods, though 
you do not apprehend any personal violence from him, and 
though he run away. See Azor, who proves it, p. 3. 1. 2. 
c. 19, 20." 

But, Father, what must the stolen property be worth to 
admit of proceeding to this extremity?" <<According to 
Reginaldus, 1. 21. g. 5 n. 66, and Tannerus in 22, disp. 
49. 8 d. 4. n. 69, 'The article must be of considerable value 
in the opinion of sl prudent man.' Layman and Filiutius 
concur in this statement." '^But, Father, this is saying 
nothing. Where are we to find a prudent and wise man to 
give the required estimate? How is it they do not deter- 
mine upon the exact sum?" ''How? — Do you imagine it to 
be so very easy a thing to fix the relative value of human 
life, the life of a Christian too, in comparison with money? 
It is precisely in tliis particular, that I wish to show you the 
necessity of resorting to our casuists. Examine the an- 
cient Fathers: inquire of them how much money is requisite 
to purchase permission to kill a man? What do they say? 
Nothing hut non occides, *thou shalt not kill.'?' "Who, 
then," I inquired, "has ventured to determine this sum?" 



FKOVlIfClAJL liETTBRS. 83 

'AVho? Our great and incomparable Molina, the glory of 
oar socletj, the man who, by his inimitable wisdom, has es- 
:timated it at *six or seven ducats, for which he declares that 
it is lawful to kill the thief though he run away,' t. 4. tr. 3, 
disp. 16. d. 6: and he adds, *that he should not presume to 
•condemn a man as guilty of any crime for killing a person 
who attempts to rob another of the value of a crown or less, 
unius aurei vel minoris adhiic valoris:'' which has led Esco- 
bar to establish this general rule, n. 44: ^that one may kill 
another regularly, according to Molina, for the value of a 
crown.* " 

*<Well, Father, and how came Molina to possess such pen- 
etration as to determine an affair of this importance, without 
•aiiy aid from Scripture, the Councils, or the Fathers? I 
see he must have been endowed with most peculiar light, 
though very different from that by which St. Augustin wrote 
on Homicide and on Grace. I am really becoming quite 
learned upon this subject, and I perceive, with perfect clear- 
ness, that none but clergymen will henceforward abstain 
from killing those who shall violate their honour or steal 
their goods.'* <'What do you mean?" said the Father: 
**would it be reasonable in your opinion, that the persons to 
whom the greatest respect is due, should alone be exposed to 
the insolence of the wicked? Our Fathers have anticipated 
this evil; for Tannerus, tom. ii. d. 49. 8 d. 4. n. 76, says 
*it is allowable for ecclesiastics and eren monks to kill, not 
only in defence of their lives, but also their goods, whether 
belonging to themselves or the community.' The very same 
words are used by Molina, as quoted by Escobar, n. 43. 
■Becan in 2, 2. t. 2. 9. 7 de Horn, concl. 2. n. 5, Reginaldus, 
1. 21. c 5. n. 68, Layman, 1. 3. tr. 3. p. 3. c. 3. n. 4: Lessius, , 
I. 2. c. 9 d. 11 n. 72, According to our celebrated Father 
'Launy, it is lawful for priests and monks to kill others to 
in-event their design of injuriously calumniating them; but 
always under the influence of a well-directed intention* See 
't. 5. disp- 36. n. 118: *A priest or monk is allowed to kill a 
calumniator who threatens to publish scandalous crimes of 



84 PHOVINCIAL LETTERS. 

their society or themselves, if there exist no other means of 
jirevention; as when just ready to propagate his malignities, 
if he be not instantly killed. For in such a case, as it would 
be lawful for a monk to kill the person who was desirous of 
taking away his life, so is it to kill him who wishes to take 
away his honour, or that of his fraternity, in the same man- 
ner as it is for the people of the world in general."^ 

'^Really, Father,'' said I, <*this is what I never knew 
before; I have always been simple enough to imagine just 
the reverse, having constantly heard that the church was so 
averse to the shedding of blood, that she would not even 
permit the ecclesiastical judges to attend when the verdict 
was pronounced upon criminals.'' '<0h, Sir," replied he, 
*'you need not perplex yourself; our Father Launy proves 
this doctrine, but, with a modesty worthy of so great a man, 
submits it to the prudence and discretioii of the reader: and 
Caramuel, our illustrious defender in his Fundamental The- 
ology, p. 543, considers it as so certain, that he maintains, 
*the contrary is not probable/ and deduces many admirable 
inferences; one of which, especially, he calls Hhe conclusion 
of conclusions,' conclusionum conclusion *that a priest not 
only may, on certain occasions, kill a calumniator, but there 
are cases when he ought to do it; etiam aliquando debet 
occidere/ He enters into the examination of many new 
questions resulting from this principle; as, for example, 
Whether THE Jesuits may kill the Janseijists?" 
"Alas! Father," I exclaimed, ''this is a most surprising 
point in theology ! I hold the Jansenists already no better 
than dead men by the doctrine of Father Launy." ''Aha, 
Sir, you are caught; for Caramuel deduces the very opposite 
conclusion from the same principles." "How so?" said I. 
"Because," replied he, "they cannot injure our reputation. 
Observe his words, n. 1146 and 1147, p. 547 and 548: 'The 
Jansenists call the Jesuits Pelagians: may they be killed [ov 
doing so? No— for this plain reason, that the Jansenists 
are no more able to obscure the glory of our society, than 
an owl is to hide the sun: in fact, they promote it, though 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 85 

certainly against their intention — occidi non possunt, quia 
nocere noii potuerunW " Alas, Father, and does the exist- 
ence of the Jansenists depend solely upon their capacity 
of injuring your reputation? If that be the case, I am 
afraid they are not in a very good predicament: for if the 
slightest probahility should arise of their doing you any 
hurt, they may be despatched at once. You can perform 
the deed logically and in form: for it is only to direct 
your intention right, and you ensure a quiet conscience. 
What a blessedness for those who can endure injuries to 
know this charming doctrine! But, on the other hand, 
how miserable is the condition of the offending party! 
Really, Father, it would be better to have to do with 
people totally destitute of all religion, than with those 
who have received instructions so far only as to this point, 
relative to directing the intention. I am afraid this in- 
tention of the murderer is no consolation to the wounded 
person. He can have no perception of this secret direc- 
tion: poor man ! he is conscious only of the blow he re- 
ceives; and I am not certain whether he would not be 
less indignant to be cruelly massacred by people in a vio- 
lent transport of rage, than to be devoutly killed for con- 
science sake." 

<'But, joking apart, I am a little surprised, my good 
Father, at all this,* and the questions proposed by Father 
Launy and Caramuel, I confess, displease me." *'Why 
so?" said he; '*are you a Jansenist?" **I have a reason," 
said I, < 'quite of a different description. I am in the habit 
of writing, from time to time, to a friend in the country, 
all the information I can obtain respecting your maxims; 
and although I simply and faithfully report your words, I 
cannot by any means be certain but that some strange 
and fanciful mortal, imagining I am inimical to your so- 
ciety, may deduce some extravagant inferences from your 
principles." *'0h," said the Father, *'you need not cherish 
any apprehensions: I will ensure you^ our Fathers have 
printed nothing but with the approbation of their supc- 



©6 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

riors. No danger can therefore result from any kind of 
publicity.'* 

Guaranteed, therefore, by this good Father, I send you 
this communication; but I find my paper is failing, not my 
subject, which it would absolutely require volumes to ex- 
haust. , 

I am, &c. 



PmeVINClAX LETTERS. |^ 



LETTER Vin. 

Corrupt Maxims of the Casuists respecting Judges^ Usurers, 
the Contract Mohatra, Bankriipts, Mestitutions, ^c— 
Various other extravagant Mtions. 

Paris, May 28, 1656. 
Sir: — You did not perhaps imagine, that any person 
would have the curiosity to inquire who we were; there are, 
however, people who attempt to guess it, but without suc- 
cess. Some suppose that I am one of the doctors of the 
Sorbonne, others attribute my letters to four or five per- 
sons, who, like myself, are neither priests nor ecclesiastics 
of any description. All these erroneous conjectures tend to 
convince me, that my plan is not a bad one to conceal my- 
self from every one excepting yourself and the good Father 
who bears with my visits, while I bear with his conversa- 
tion, but not, I assure you, without j^ome degree of punish- 
ment. It is necessary, however, to impose some restraint 
upon my own feelings, for he would not utter another syl- 
lable, were he to perceive my real disgust, in which case I 
should not be able to perform my promise of giving an ac- 
count of Jesuitical morality. You ought, indeed, to set 
some value upon the violence I am obliged to do to my own 
feelings. It is truly distressing to see the whole system of 
Christian morals overturned by such extravagances, with- 
out daring pointedly to contradict them. But after having en- 
dured so much for your pleasure, I verily believe I shall at 
last blaze out for my own satisfaction, when he has finished 
all he has to say. Still, I shall refrain as long as possible; 
for, the more silent I am, the more communicative is he 
At the last interview, he gave me so much information, that 



88 PROVTl?fCTAL LETTEKS. 

I shall be scarcely able to detail it all. You will, however, 
find some very convenient principles to oppose restitution: 
for, in whatever manner he may qualify his maxims, they, 
in fact, most evidently favour corrupt judges, usurers, bank- 
rupts, thieves, prostitutes, witches; all of whom are suiR- 
ciently dispensed from the obligation of making restitution 
of what they gain in their respective trades. This was ful- 
ly explained by the following discourse 

"I promised," said he, *^at our first conversation, to state 
the maxims of our authors respecting every class of man- 
kind. You have already heard those which relate to the 
beneficed clergy, priests, monks, servants, and gentlemen: 
let us hasten to others, and begin with the judges. 

< 'Allow me to point out one of the most important and 
most advantageous maxims which our Fathers have promul- 
gated in their favour. It is that of our learned Castro 
Palao, one of the twenty-four elders. His words are, 'May 
a judge, in a question of right, decide according to one pro- 
bable opinion, and abandon another which is more probable? 
Yes; though it be contrary to his own sentiments — imd con- 
tra propriam opinionem:^ with this our Father Escobar per- 
fectly concurs, tr. 6. ex. 6. n. 65,^' "Well, Father, this is 
a noble beginning ! The judges are extremely obliged to 
you, and I do think it is very strange that they should op- 
pose your doctrine of probability, as they sometimes plain- 
ly do, since it is so completely in their favour. You have 
given them the same power over the fortunes of mankind as 
you have yourselves over their consciences.'* "You see, 
then," returned he, "we are not acting from motives of self- 
interest, but solely from a regard to the peace of their con- 
sciences; and it is on this account that our great Molina has 
laboured so assiduously and usefully respecting the presents 
which are sent them. In order to relieve them from those 
scruples w^hich they might otherwise feel in certain cases, 
he has taken care to enumerate all the cases in which tliey 
may conscientiously receive such presents, unless there 
should exist any particular law^ to proliibit them, t. 1. tr. 2. 



PROVINCIAL IKTTERS. 89 

d. 88. n. 6: 'Judges may receive presents from parties, when 
they are given either from friendship or from gratitude, in 
consideration of the justice which has heen rendered them, 
or in order to induce them to render it, or to excite them to 
pay particular attention to their business, or to engage them 
to expedite it.' Our learned Escobar says, tr. 6. ex. 6. n. 
63: *If there should be many persons who possess an equal 
right to have their cause promptly investigated, and the 
judge should take any thing from one upon condition (ex 
pado) of dispatching him first — is he doing wrong? No, 
certainly not, according to Layman; for by the law of natu- 
ral right, he does not injure others, by granting to one in 
consideration of his present, that which he might have grant- 
ed to any other if he chose; and, being equally obliged to do 
justice to all, as they have an equal right, he becomes placed 
under a greater obligation to him who has made the present 
to procure a preference, and this preference seems to be a 
worthy equivalent for the reward — quee oUigatio videtur 
pretio aestimabilis.^ '' 

''Reverend Father," exclaimed I, ''this permission, of 
which the first magistrates in the kingdom are at present, 
ignorant, really astonishes me: for the first president has 
introduced an order into parliament for the purpose of pre- 
venting secretaries from taking bribes to procure such pre- 
ferences, which shows that he was far from thinking it al- 
lowable forjudges to do it, and all the world has applaud- 
ed a reformation in this department so important to all 
parties." 

Surprised at this, the good Father exclaimed, ''is that a 
fact? I never heard of it Our opinion indeed is only 
probable, the contrary is probable also." *'Why, truly/' said 
I, "it is believed that the president has more than probably 
done well, for he has by this means arrested the progress 
of public corruption, which had but too long been tolerated." 
"I am of the same opinion," said he; "but passing that, let 
us leave the judges." "Agreed: you are quite right: they 
are very ungrateful? considering what you have done for 
12 



90 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

them.'* «<0h! it is not on that account; but there is such 
a variety of topics before us, that we must be brief upon 
each. 

"Let us now speak about men of business. You are aware 
that our greatest difficulty with them is to prevent usury, for 
which purpose our Fathers have exerted the utmost care: 
for such is their utter detestation of this vice, that Escobar 
says, tr. 3. ex. 5. n. 1, 'that to affirm of usury it is no crime, 
is to be guilty of heresy :' and our Father Bauny, in his Sum- 
mary of Sins, ch. 14, has filled a number of pages with an 
account of the punishments due to usurers. He pronounces 
them 'infamous when alive, and unworthy of burial when 
dead.'" ''Indeed!'* said I, "is Father Bauny so severe? 
I could not have imagined if "It is so, however," said 
he, "when it is necessary; but then this learned casuist, ob- 
serving that men are only induced to usury by the desire of 
gain, adds, in the same place, 'the world would be very 
much obliged, if guaranteeing them against the bad effects 
of usury, and at the same time against its guilt, some expe- 
dient could be adopted of legally procuring as much or more 
pecuniary profit than is obtained by usurious practices."* 
"Undoubtedly, Father; then we should not have any more 
usurers." "This he has accomplished by furnishing ^a 
general method for persons of every description, gentlemen, 
presidents, counsellors,' &c. — and so easy, that it consists 
simply in pronouncing certain words when the money is 
lent, in consequence of which the profit may be taken with- 
out being guilty of a usurious transaction, which it would be 
without such a precaution.'* "Pray, what are these mys- 
terious words?" "Not at all mysterious: they are his own 
words, for you know that he wrote his summary of Sins in 
French, as he says in his preface, to be understood by all 
mankind. The person of whom you wish to borrow shall 
answer thus: 'I have no money to lend, though I have some 
to be sure, to place out for an honest and lawful profit. 
If you wish to improve the sum you request by honest in- 
dustry, by a co-partnership of half and half, possibly I might 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 91 

be induced to accommodate you. But as it is a trouble- 
some affair to settle the profits of trade, if you will ensure 
me a certain gain and my whole principal, without any 
hazard, we shall agree the sooner; and, in fact, you shall 
have the money immediately.' Is not this an admirable 
method of acquiring money without committing sin ? And 
has not Father Bauny good reason for saying in conclu- 
sion, *By this means, in my opinion, a great number of peo- 
ple who, by usury/extortion, and illegal contracts, provoke 
the divine indignation, may save themselvesi and acquire 
good, honest and lawful profits.*' 

**Fathef," said I, "these are most powerful words ! They 
must certainly possess some secret charm to drive away 
usury, with which I am unacquainted, for I have always 
supposed that his sin consisted in taking back more money 
tlian was lent." <*This shows," said he, <*how little you 
understand it. Usury, according to our Fathers, consists 
in little or nothing more than the intention of taking an 
advantage merely as usurious. Hence our Father Escobar 
points out the method of avoiding usury, by simply diverting 
the intention, tr. 3 ex. 5. n. 4, S3, 34: ^ It would,* says he, 
*be usurious, to take a profit from those to whom money is 
lent, if it were exacted as a just debt; but if as a debt of grat- 
itude, it is not usury;' and n. 3, *it is not lawful to have an 
intention of profiting by the loan of your money directly, but 
to expect it from the goodness of the person who has bor- 
rowed it {media benevolentid) is not usury.' Such are the 
subtle and admirable methods we have adopted! But, after 
all, one of the very best in my judgment (for we have a great 
variety of them), is that of the contract Mohatra." "The 
contract mohatra, Father !" "Oh ! I see very well you don't 
understand it. The name, indeed, seems a little strange, 
but Escobar shall explain it, tr. 3. ex. 3. n. 36: 'The contract 
Mohatra is that by which one purchases cloth at a dear rate 
and upon credit, in order to resell it immediately to the same 
person for ready money and cheap. ' This is the nature of the 
contract referred to, by which you perceive that a certain 
sum is received in hand by remaining debtor for more." 



92 PHOT INC lAl. LETTliRS. 

**But5 Father, I believe that Escobar is the only writer 
that ever made use of this term: is not that the fact?"— - 
*'How strangely ignorant you are/* said he;" the very last 
book of moral Theology, printed at Paris this year, treats 
of Mohatra in the most learned manner. It is entitled, ^Epi- 
logus Summarum: an abridgment of all the bodies of divinity 
deduced from our Fathers Suarez, Sanchez, Lessius, Fagun- 
dez, Hurtado, and other celebrated casuists.' In page 54, 
you have these words: ^Mohatra is when a man who has 
occasion for twenty guineas, purchases cloths of a tradesman 
for thirty, at a bill payable in twelve months, and resells 
them to him immediately for twenty guineas down.' You see, 
by this quotation, that Mohatra is no new invented term.'* 
**But, Father, is this a lawful contract?" *^No,- for Es- 
cobar informs you, at the same place, that Hhere are laws 
which prohibh it under the severest penalties.' " <^It is 
useless then.". *'Not at all; for Escobar, in the same pas- 
sage, states some expedients to render it lawful, *even 
though,' says he, *the person who purchases and resells, 
fixed his intention chiefly upon nothing but the profit; pro- 
vided only that he do not in selling exceed the highest price 
of articles of this description, and that in repurchasing he 
do not give less than the lowest, excepting it had been be- 
fore agreed upon, in so many express terms or otherwise." 
"But Lessius de Just. 1. 2. c. 21. d. 16. says, ^that even 
though the person had sold his goods with the intentioji of 
repurchasing them at an inferior price, he is not obliged to 
return the profit, except perhaps out of charity, supposing the 
individual from whom he exacts it be in indigent circum- 
stances, and then provided he can do it without any personal 
inconvenience — si commode potest^ This is saying as much 
as can be said." '^Indeed, Father, a greater indulgence 
would, I think, be the extreme of vice." '*Yes, yes: our 
Fathers well know where to stop; and you now see sufficient 
evidence of the utility of Mohatra. I might point out a varie- 
ty of other methods, but these are sufficient. I now propose 
to speak of those whose affairs are in a ruined state. 



PKOVINCIAL LETTERS. 93 

"Our Fathers dispense comfort suited to every one's condi- 
tion; for if persons do not possess enough to live genteelly 
and discharge their dehts, they are allowed to become bank- 
rupts, and conceal a part of their property from their credi- 
tors. Our Father Lessius has settled this point, and Escobar 
confirms his decision, tr. 3. ex. 2. n. 163: *May a bankrupt 
retain, with a good conscience, as much of his property as 
is necessary for the support of his family with credit — nc 
indecore vivat? I maintain, with Lessius, that he may, even 
though he had gained it by injustice aud notorius crime — ex 
j^istitia et notorio delicto: in this case, however, he cannot 
retain quite so much as he otherwise might." *'How, Fa- 
ther? What a strange kind of charity is this, to allow of 
the retention of property, which has been acquired by rob- 
bery for the subsistence of a family, to the detriment of 
creditors, to whom it properly belongs?"' *<0h!" said he, 
•'it is impossible to give universal satisfaction, and our Fa- 
thers have been particularly solicitous of comforting the 
miserable and indigent, and it is for their benefit that our 
Father Vasquez, quoted by Castro Palao, torn. 1. tr. 6. d. 
6. p. 6. n. 12, says: *If you see a thief ready and determin- 
ed to rob a poor person, you may, in order to prevent him, 
point out some other individual who is rich, whom he may 
attack instead. " If neither Vasquez nor Castro Palao hap- 
pen to be in your possession, you will find the same doctrine 
in Escobar; for, as you are aware, he has scarcely advanc- 
ed any thing but what is taken from our twenty-four most 
celebrated Fathers. See tr. 5. ex. 5. n. 120. The Prac- 
tice of our Society respecting Charity towards a Migh- 
hour.'' 

<*Father," said I, ^^this is really a most extraordinary 
kind of charity, to save one by sacrificing another! But 
charity should not be partial, and he who has given such 
advice, should be afterwards obliged in conscience to repay 
the rich man whatever he lost." **Not at all, not at all: he 
was not the thief — he simply advised another to do it. But 
hear the wise decision of our Father Bauny upon a much 



94 PROVINCIAL XETTERS. 

more astonishing case, and in which you would be ready to 
believe that restitution was still more obligatory. It is in 
ch. 13, of his summary: 'A person desires a soldier to beat 
his neighbour, or burn the barn of a man who has given 
him some offence. The question is, whether in case the 
soldier absconds, the person who employed him to commit 
these injuries, ought to make reparation for the damage 
that has ensued. My opinion is that he ought not: for no 
one is bound to make restitution if he have not violated jus- 
tice; and pray, where is any such violation in requesting 
another to do one a favour? Whatever demand you were 
induced to make, the man was always at liberty to grant or 
refuse it To whichever side he inclines, he is influenced 
by his own free-will, nothing compels him but his own 
obliging disposition and temper. If, therefore, the soldier 
make no compensation for the mischief he has dome, it 
would not be obligatory on him to do it who employed the 
delinquent." 

This passage nearly put an end to our conversation, for 
I was on the very point of bursting into a fit of laughter at 
the obliging disposition and good temper of an incendiary, 
and at the extravagant reasons adduced to exempt the real 
culprit from the duty of making reparation for the damages 
he inflicts, when the judges would not have reprieved him 
from a sentence of death; but if I had not checked my risi- 
hility, the good Father would have been completely offend- 
ed, for he spoke with great seriousness, and continued in 
the following strain: 

'*You ought now to be convinced, from such a variety of 
proofs, that your objections are quite nugatory, though they 
are perpetually diverting us from the subject. Let us then 
return to these wretched individuals, for whose consolation 
our Fathers, and among them Lessius, declare, L 2. c. 12, 
^they are allowed to commit theft not only in cases of ex- 
treme necessity, but when their afflictions, though heavy, are 
5iot extreme.' Escobar states the same in tr. 1. ex. 9. n. 
S9.'" ^^This is very surprising, Father! Because there 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 9^ 

is scarcely any person in the world who cannot plead this 
kind of necessity, and who may not therefore commit rob- 
bery with a safe conscience; and though you should restrict 
this permission to those only who are hondjidi in that con- 
dition, it would be opening the gates to an infinity of thefts, 
which the judges will punish notwithstanding this heavy ne- 
cessity, and which you have the best possible reason to sup- 
press — you, whose duty it is not only to maintain jwsiice 
amongst mankind, but charity also, which is annihilated by 
such a principle. For, is it not violating charity and in- 
juring your neighbour, to destroy his property to enrich 
yourself? This is what I have hitherto been taught to be- 
lieve." ''Perhaps so," said he, *'but it is not always the 
fact: for our great Molina says, 't. 2. tr. 2. disp. S28. n. 8, 
Hhat the rule of charity does not require any one to deprive 
himself of an advantage for the purpose of screening his 
neighbour from a loss." This is stated in illustration of 
what he had undertaken to demonstrate, namely, *that we 
are not in conscience under an obligation to restore the 
property which another has put into our possession, in order 
to swindle his creditors.' Lessius maintains the same opin- 
ion, and confirms it by the same principle, 1. 2. c. 20. disp. 
19. n. 168. 

**You really do not cherish sufficient compassion for peo- 
ple in distressed circumstances; our Fathers evince far 
greater charity. They do justice to the poor as well as the 
rich: nay, more, they render justice even to the guilty: 
for though they denounce such as commit great crimes, yet 
they teach us that property acquired by the perpetration of 
them may be lawfully retained. Lessius gives this general 
rule, 1. 2. c 14. d. 8: 'We are under no obligation, either 
by the law of nature, or by any positive laws, that is to say, 
by any law, to restore what we have acquired by having 
committed a criminal action, as adultery, even though this 
action be contrary to justice;* for, as Escobar states, in 
quoting Lessius, tr. 1. ex. 8. n. 59, 'the property which a 
woman acquires by adultery, though gained indeed in an 



96 PR0yi2«fCIAL LETTERS. 

illegitimate manner, yet may be lawfully kept, after posses- 
sion is once obtained — quamvis mulier illidte acquirat, licite 
tamen rgtinet acquisita.' 

**0n this account, our most celebrated casuists formally 
decide, that what a judge takes from parties whom he has 
favoured by an unjust sentence, what a soldier receives for 
having killed another, and what any one obtains for the 
most infamous crimes, may be lawfully retained. Escobar 
has accumulated abundant evidence upon the subject from 
our Fathers, tr. 3. ex. 1. n. 2v*5, where he establishes this 
general rule: ^Property acquired by iniquitous methods, as 
by murder, by an unjust sentence, by lewdness, &c. may be 
lawfully possessed, without any necessity of making resti- 
tutionf and again, tr. 5. ex. 5. n. 53: <A person may dis- 
pose of what he receives for murder, an unjust decree, and 
infamous sins in general, &c. as he pleases, because the 
possession of it is just, and he acquires a right and title to 
whatever he gains by such means."^ '^Oh, Father,'' ex- 
claimed I, ^^this mode of acquiring I never heard of before! 
I doubt, moreover, whether it be authorised in law or jus- 
tice, or that it is possible to obtain right and title to commit 
assassination, injustice, and adultery!" "I know* nothing,*' 
returned he, <'of what books of law say upon the subject; but 
this I well know, that our writings, which constitute the 
true guides of conscience, speak as I do, one case excepted, 
in which restitution is required, namely, 'when money is 
received from persons w^ho have no power to dispose of 
their x>roperty; such as children under age and monks' — 
these our great Molina expressly exempts, tom. 1. de JusU 
tr. 2. disp. 94 : ^JSTisi mulier accepisset ah eo qui alienare 
non potest, ut d religioso et filio familias,^' In this case 
the money must be restored. Escobar quotes this passage, 
tr. 1. ex. 8. n. 59, and confirms it in another place, tr. 3. 
ex. 1. n. 23," 

Here I could not help remarking, that the monks seemed 
to be much better treated in this instance than others. '*By 
no means," said he; ''are not all minors generally placed 



PROyilfCIAL LETTERS. 9f 

in the same situation, amongst whom the mcmks may be 
considered as classing all their life-time? It is therefore 
proper, that they should be excepted^ with regard to others, 
there is no obligation to return to them what has been re- 
ceived for any iniquitous action; this is satisfactorily de- 
monstrated by Lessius, 1. 2. de Just. c. 14. d. 8. n. 52: *A 
wicked action may be estimated at a certain price, in pro- 
portion to the advantage resulting to the individual who has 
caused it to be perpetrated, and the trouble it occasions him 
who engages in it; on which account the restitution of the 
reward is by no means obligatory, whatever the crime may 
be, as murder, unjust judgment, impurity (for these are the 
instances he adduces,) unless the reward be taken of those 
who had no power or means to give it. You may perhaps 
say, that he who receives money for perpetrating a wdcked 
deed, commits sin, and therefore ought not either to take or 
to keep it; I answer, that after the execution of the project, 
it is no sin either to pay or to receive payment.' Our great 
Filiutius enters into a still more detailed statement. He 
remarks, *that a person is obliged in conscience, to pay for 
actions of this nature in different proportions, according to 
the different circumstances of the persons who commit them, 
and some merit more than others.' This he establishes on 
the most solid reasoning, tr. 1. c 9. n. 231: ^Occultseforni- 
caridB debetur, pretium in conscientia, et multd majore ratione 
quam 'publicae. Copia enim quam occulta facit mulier sui 
corporis, multd plus valet quam ea quampublicafacitmeretrix; 
nee ulla est lex positiva quse reddat cam incapacem pretii 
Idem dicendum de pretio promisso virgini, conjugatse, moni- 
ali, et cuicumque alii. Est enim omnium eadem ratio.' " 

After this, he pointed out such infamous passages in his 
authors, that I dare not venture to introduce them, passages 
with which he would have been disgusted himself, (for he 
is a good man,) were it not for the reverence he entertains 
for his Fathers, which induces him to receive, with the ut- 
most deference, every thing they choose to dictate. I con- 
tinued silent, less however for the purpose of procuring a 
13 



98 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

continuance of bis discourse, than in consequence of the as- 
tonishment I felt to see books replete with such horrible, un- 
just, and altogether extravagant decisions, written by per- 
sons professing religion ! 

He pursued his topic without interruption, concluding 
thus: <<For this reason our illustrious Molina (and I hope 
after this you will be satisfied) settles the question in the 
following words: 4s the person who has received a reward 
for a criminal action obliged to return it? Why — some dis- 
tinctions must be made — if the action for which the compen- 
sation was paid be not done, the money must be refunded; 
but if it be, there is no obligation to return it — si non fecit 
hoc malum, tenetur restituere; secus. sifeeit^' This is cited 
in Escobar, tr. 3. ex. 2. n. 138. 

Such are some of our principles respecting restitution. 
You have received a great deal of information to-day: let me 
see how you have profited by your instructions. Now, Sir, 
answer me this question: 'When a judge has taken money 
from one of the parties in a law-suit, to pronounce a sen- 
tence in his favour, is he under any obligation to return 
it?' " "The answer as you have taught me, is plainly no." 
**There now — I thought how it would be — did I make no 
exceptions? Did I not expressly state, that restitution is 
not necessary, if he pronounced a sentence in favour of the 
party which had no right; but otherwise, would you have a 
person purchase a decision which is legally due to him? 
Unreasonable, most unreasonable ! Are you not aware that 
a judge owes justice to all, and therefore cannot sell it? 
But he does not owe injustice, and therefore he may sell 
that* Our most approved authors, as Molina, disp. 94 and 
99: Reginaldus, 1. 10. n. 184, 185, and 187: Filiutius, tr. 
31. n. 220 and 228: Escobar, tr. 3. ex. 1. n. 21 and 23: 
Lessius, 1. 2. c. 14. d. 8. n. 52: concur in this, *thata judge 
is under an obligation to restore whatever he may have re- 
ceived for doing justice, unless it were given him purely 
from a motive of liberality; but he is not at all obliged to re- 
turn what he has received of a man in whose favour he has 
passed an unjust sentence,^ " 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 99 

I was dumb, absolutely dumb, at these fantastical dis- 
tinctions; and while reflecting upon their pernicious conse- 
quences, my worthy catechist had prepared another ques- 
tion. **Pray," said the Father, **answer me next time 
with a little more circumspection — 'Is a conjurer obliged to 
restore the money he gains by his trade?* '* **Just as you 
please, reverend Father." ''As I please? Admirable in- 
deed ! It should seem from your way of talking, that truth 
depended upon every one's caprice. I see, however, this is 
too puzzling a question for you, and I readily concede some 
assistance. Sanchez shall resolve the difficulty — who but 
Sanchez? — First he distinguishes (Sum. 1. S. c 38. n. 94, 
95, and 96) between this conjurer 'making use of astrology 
and other natural methods, and his employing the diaboli- 
cal art of necromancy; for in one case he is obliged to make 
restitution, in the other not.' Now pray tell me in which 
case?'' "Oh," said I, "there can be no difficulty here." "Ah! 
I know what you mean : you would reply that he is obliged to 
make restitution? if he made use of diabolical agency. But 
you understand nothing about the matter: it is quite the re- 
verse. Listen to the decision of Sanchez in the same pas- 
sage: ' if the conjurer have not taken the pains and care to 
know, by means of the devil, what could not otherwise be 
known — si nullam operam apposuit ut arte diaboli id sciret — 
restitution must be made; but if he have taken the requisite 
pains, it is not obligatory.'" "How so, Father?" — 
"What!" replied he, "is this so incomprehensible to you? 
The reason obviously is, that by diabolical aid, divination 
may probably be accomplished; but astrology is fallacious." 
"But, Father, suppose the devil should not give a true answer, 
for he is scarcely more to be depended upon than astrology; 
must not the conjurer then, for the same reason, make res- 
titution?" "Not always. Distinguo — says Sanchez: 'For 
if the conjurer be an ignoramus in the diabolical art — si sit 
artis diabolicse ignarus — he is obliged to make restitution; 
but if he be a skilful sorcerer, and have used every means 
to discover the truth, he is not obliged, because the care 
and diligence of such a sorcerer may be estimated at a cer- 



100 PROVIIfCIAL LETTERS. 

tain pecuniary \2L\\xe—diligentia d mago apposita est pretio 
seitimabilis,^ " 

**There is some sense, Father," said I, **in this: for here 
is a method of inducing sorcerers to make themselves learn- 
ed and expert in their art, by presenting the hope of gain- 
ing money in a lawful way, according to your maxims, and 
moreover serving the public." <*f am afraid," said he, 
**this is nothing but banter, but let me assure you it is very 
wrong; for if you speak in this manner, in places where 
you are a stranger, it is likely people would be exceeding- 
ly displeased at your language, and censure you severely 
for turning religious subjects into ridicule." **0h, I could 
easily defend myself; for I believe whoever takes the trouble 
to investigate the true sense of my expressions, will find 
just the contrary, and perhaps an opportunity of showing 
this may occur in some of our future conversations." **Ho, 
ho!" returned the good Father, *^you are serious now how- 
ever." ^'I confess," said I, '^that the suspicion of being 
capable of ridiculing sacred things, would make me very 
unhappy, and would be equally unjust." *'Nay, my dear 
Sir, I was only joking with you; but to be serious." '^I 
am quite disposed to be so, Father, if such be really your 
intention; but I must acknowledge that I was surprised to 
observe that your Fathers extended their care to every class 
of mankind, so far as even to regulate the legitimate pay of 
a sorcerer." '^One cannot write," said he, "for too many, 
or particularize cases with too much exactitude, or even 
repeat the same things too often in different books. You 
shall see this confirmed by a quotation from one of the 
gravest of our Fathers, Cellot, 1. 8. ch. 16. § 2. on the Hi- 
erarchy. 'We know a person who was going to restore a 
considerable sum of money by order of his confessor, and 
stopping on his way at a bookseller's, asked if he had any 
thing new — mimquid novi? He was shown a new treatise 
on Moral Theology : when carelessly turning over the leaves 
without any particular view, he happened upon his own 
case, and found he was not obliged to make restitution; so 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 101 

being discharged from his burdensome scruple, but very- 
well content to carry the burden of his money, he returned 
home light at heart — abjedd scrupili sarcincif retento miri 
ponderCf levior domum repetiit. 

'^After all this, will you doubt the utility of our maxims? 
Will you ridicule and banter them now! Or will you not 
rather concur with Father Cellot in his pious reflection on 
the happiness of such a coincidence? Incidents of this na- 
ture are in God the effects of his providence, in our guardi- 
an angel the effect of his guidance, and in those to whom 
they happen, the effect of their predestination. God, from 
all eternity, resolved that the golden chain of their salva- 
tion should depend on that very writer, and not upon a 
hundred others who have all stated the same thing; butthey 
did not chance to meet with them. If this very author had 
not written, that individual would not have been saved. 
Let us then, by the bowels of Jesus Christ, implore those 
who censure the number of our authors, not to begrudge 
people writings, which the everlasting election of God, and 
the blood of Jesus Christ has procured for them. 

**Such then are the beautiful expressions which this learn- 
ed man employs to prove the proposition he has advanced, 
<that it is extremely useful to have a great variety of wri- 
ters on Moral Teology — quam utile sit de theologid multos 
scribere.' *' 

^^Father,'^ said I, "with your permission, I will defer 
giving my opinion of this passage to a future opportunity, 
and will only at present speak to another point — whether, 
since your maxims are so useful, and their publication is of 
such consequence, you ought to continue giving me such 
minute information. The person to whom I transmit them, 
I can assure you, shows them about; not that we have any 
other intention in making use of them, than to serve the 
public by giving them information." '<Well," said he, 
"you are aware that I conceal nothing; and the next time 
we meet I shall fully state those comforts and indulgences 
which our Fathers allow to facilitate the services of religion, 



102 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

and smooth the path to heaven; so that having already learn- 
ed what respects the particular condition and circumstances 
of mankind, you shall be informed of every thing relating 
to them generally, and thus your knowledge upon this sub- 
ject will be complete. 

Here we parted. 

I am, &c. 

P. S. I have always forgot to say that there are different 
editions of Escobar. If you purchase his works, be sure to 
have that of Lyons, at the beginning of which you will find 
the figure of a lamb on a book sealed with seven seals, or 
the editions published at Brussels in 1651. As these are 
the latest, they are better and more ample than the earlier 
editions of 1644 and 1646 at Lyons. 



PHOyiNCIAIi LETTERS. 103 



LETTER IX. 

The false worship of the Virgin Mary which the Jesuits have 
introduced. The various facilities they have invented to 
procure Salvation withoiit any trouble and amidst the In- 
dulgences of Life. Their maxims respecting •^mbitiony 
Envy, Gluttony, Equivocation, mental Reservations, the 
Liberty which young Females enjoy, the Habits of Women^ 
Gaming, and the Manner of hearing Mass, 

Paris, July 3, 1656. 

Sir: — I shall begin unceremoniously, as the good Father 
did at my last interview. No sooner did he perceive me, 
than looking at a hook which he had in his hand — "Would 
not you," says he, **be extremely obliged to any person 
who should open to you the gates of Paradise? Would not 
you give millions of gold and silver for a key to enter in when- 
ever you please? But you need not purchase an admission 
at so dear a rate; — here is one, nay, a hundred, to be easily 
obtained." 

Whether4he good Father was reading or speaking to me 
I could not tell; but it soon became apparent, by his saying, 
''This is the commencing paragraph of a beautiful work of 
Father Barry of our society; for I never speak without au- 
thority." <'kay I ask," said I, *<what book it is?" <'The 
title is, ^Paradise opened to Philagie by a hundred devotions 
to the mother of God, of easy performance.' " '*And pray. 
Father, will each of these devotions suffice to open heaven?" 
**Yes, surely — mark what follows: 'As many separate devo- 
tions to the mother of God as you find in this book, are so 
many keys of heaven, which will open all paradise to you, 
provided you only practise them:' this is the reason he says 



104 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

at the conclusion, <it is sufficient to practise any one of 
them.' '* *^Teach me then, good Father, one of the easiest 
of that number.'* ^'They are all easy: for example, 'Salute 
the holy Virgin whenever you meet her image — Repeat the 
little chaplet of the ten pleasures of the Virgin — Often pro- 
nounce the name of Mary — Commission the angels to give 
your duty to her — Cherish a desire to build more churches 
to her than all the kings of the world put together — Wish 
her a good day every morning, and a good night every 
evening — Say the Ave Maria every day in honour of the 
heart of Mary.' This last devotion he affirms will ensure 
the heart of the Virgin." "But, Father, it is not upon the 
supposition of giving her our own?" "Oh, no; that is not 
at all necessary, when one is too much attached to the 
world. Observe what he says: 'Heart for heart is what 
should be: but yours is a little too much captivated and de- 
voted to creatures, on whicl account I dare not at present 
write you to offer this little slave called your heart;' so he 
remains satisfied with the Ave Maria which he required.— 
These are the devotions of pages 35, 59, 145, 156, 172, 258, 
and 420 of the first edition." "A very comfortable doctrine 
indeed, Father! No one, I think, can ever be damned after 
this!" "Alas!" exclaimed he, "I perceive you have no 
idea to what extremes the obduracy of some persons will 
lead them. There are people who will never bind them- 
selves even to pronounce every day these two simple phrases, 
good morning, good night, because it cannot be done with- 
out at least some exercise of memory. Father Barry, there- 
fore, deemed it necessary to furnish still easier methods; as, 
*to wear a chaplet night and day upon the arm in the form 
of a bracelet, or to carry somewhere about one a rosary, or 
a picture of the Virgin.' These devotions are to be found 
in pages 14, 326, and 447; 'and say,' adds Father Barry, 
^whether I have not furnished devotions sufficiently easy, to 
gain the good graces of the Virgin. ' " In this idea of faci- 
lity I most fully concurred. "It is," continued he, "all 
that can possibly be done, and will no doubt prove suffi- 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 105 

cicnt: for how dreadful it would be for an individual not to 
devote a single moment of his whole life, to put a chaplet 
upon his arm, or a rosary of beads into his pocket, by which 
he might so indubitably secure his salvation, that those who 
have made the experiment have never failed, whatever has 
been their conduct; though we admonish them to live vir- 
tuously. Allow me to quote only one example from page 
34, of a woman who, devoutly saluting images of the Vir- 
gin every day, constantly lived to her dying day in the prac- 
tice of a mortal sin, but was nevertheless saved by the me- 
rit of this devotion." *'But how," said I, *^pray how can 
you know that?" *'How, Sir? Because our Saviour raised 
her from the dead for the express purpose. Such is the 
complete certainty, that no one can perish who performs 
any of these devotions!" **True," answered I, *'they are, 
I know, very powerful means of salvation, and the least of 
them are extremely meritorious, when they originate in the 
principle of faith and charity possessed by real saints; but 
to make one believe that without any change of character 
they are available to conversion in the hour of death, or 
that God will raise such persons again, is a doctrine very 
well adapted, doubtless, to encourage sinners in their iniqui- 
ties, by imparting a false peace, but not to effect that genu- 
ine conversion which divine grace can alone produce." 
* 'Pshaw," said the Father, <Svhat does it signify by what 
means we obtain admission to Paradise, if we do but obtain 
it? as our late celebrated Father and provincial Binet says, 
speaking on a similar subject, in his excellent book *on the 
mark of predestination,* n. 31. p. ISO, Jifteenth edition: 'Whe- 
ther by storm or stratagem, hook or crook, never mind — 
let us rejoice, so that we do but take the city of glory.* " 
**Agreed — but the main question is, whether we shall ever 
enter into it?" ''The Virgin will answer for that. Ob- 
serve the closing paragraph of Father Barry's book: 'If it 
should happen at the hour of death, that the enemy should 
have any claim upon you, and any disquiet should arise in 
the little republic of your thoughts, you have only to say that 
14 



106 PROVINCIAL lETTERS. 

Mary answers for you, and to her he must make his applica- 
tion,^ " 

Here I remarked, that this subject might be pursued to 
a very embarrassing point, for '*who has assured us that 
the Virgin engages to answer for us?" '^Father Barry,'* 
replied he, "promises on her behalf, p. 465: *As to the ad- 
vantage and happiness accruing, I take upon me to answer 
for them, and pledge myself that the good mother will pro- 
cure them.'" "But, who will answer for Father Barry?" 
<'Who? — Pray remember he is one of our society, and are 
you ignorant that we answer for all the writings of our 
members? If you do not know this, it is time you should. 
A rule exists in our society, which prohibits all booksellers 
printing any work of our Fathers without the approbation 
jo{ our divines and the permission of our superiors. It was 
made by Henry III., on the tenth of May, 1583, and con- 
firmed by Henry IV., on the fourteenth of February, 1612, 
so that our whole fraternity is responsible for the publica- 
tions of each of our Fathers. This is a peculiarity attach- 
ing to our society, on which account no work originates 
with us but what expresses the spirit of the whole body. 
I thought it proper to give you this information." 

Acknowledging, my obligation, I expressed myself ex- 
tremely sorry that I did not know this circumstance before, 
as I should certainly have paid more attention to these au- 
thors. < 'Nothing," he remarked, "but a want of opportuni- 
ty had prevented his mentioning it; but the advantage of it 
will be felt in future; in the mean time let us pursue our sub- 
ject. I believe that I have explained certain means of sal- 
vation that are sufficiently easy, sure, and numerous: but 
our Fathers would be extremely glad, if people would not 
stop at this point, where nothing is required excepting what 
is absolutely necessary for salvation. As they are incessant- 
ly solicitous of promoting the glory of God in the highest 
degree, they wish to raise mankind to the noblest elevation 
of piety: and as people of the world are generally diverted 
from religion by their strange notions respecting it, we have 



PROYINCIAt LETTERS. 107 

deemed it of the greatest importance to remove this first oh- 
struction, in which Father le Moine has acquired great re- 
putation-by his book of ^Easy Devotiouy' written with that 
express design. It contains a most charming picture of de- 
votion. Never did any one know the subject so well as 
himself. Observe the first sentence: ' Virtue has never yet 
shown herself to any one, nor has any good resemblance of 
her been drawn. It is not surprising that so few attempt to 
climb up her rock. She has been painted as morose, lov- 
ing solitude, associating only with grief and toil — in short, 
as an enemy to pleasure and merriment, which constitute the 
very essence of enjoyment and the sweetest relish of life, p. 
92."^ 

*'But, Father, there have been great saints who have pass- 
ed a life of extreme mortification." '*True," said he, *'but 
we have always seen saints polite and devotees courteous, 
p. 191. In page 86, you will perceive that the difference 
in their manners proceeds from the difference of their tem- 
pers. I do not deny that you may see devotees of a pale 
and melancholy complexion who love silence and retirement, 
who have nothing but dulness in their veins and fasting 
upon their countenances; but there are many others who 
wear a happier appearance, having an abundance of those 
sweet and warm humours, and of that pure blood in which 
the sources of joy originate. 

"Hence you may notice that the love of- retirement and 
solitude does not attach to every devotee, and, as I said, is 
rather constitutional than the effect of piety: but those aus- 
terities to which you referred are characteristic of a savage 
and a brute. Father le Moine, in the seventh book of his 
Moral Fictures, classes them in the ridiculous and debased 
brder of melancholy madmen. To give you a specimen of 
his figure: *Such a person has no eyes for the beauties of 
art and nature. Any kind of pleasure he considers as an 
insufferable burden; he spends the festival days in a bury- 
ing ground, and takes more delight in a hollow tree or in a 
cavern than in a palace or on a throne. As to insults and 



108 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

injuries, he is as insensible to them as a statue. Honour 
and glory are idols he knows nothing about, and to whom 
he has no incense to offer. A beauty is to him a spectre, 
and those lofty and commanding looks, those tyrant eyes 
which lead captive and enslave the world, are as displea- 
sing to him as the sun is to an owl." 

^^Reverend Father," I exclaimed, '4f you had not declar- 
ed that Father le Moine drew this picture, I assure you that 
I should have considered it as the production of some wick- 
ed fellow who meant to render saints ridiculous: for if this 
be not the representation of a man totally detached from 
those sentiments which the Gospel requires us to renounce 
— really I cannot understand what is." ''Ignorance! This 
is but *the outline of a weak and savage character who pos- 
sesses none of the honourable and natural passions which he 
ought to have,' as Father le Moine expresses it. In this 
manner he teaches 'virtue and Christian philosophy,* con- 
formably with the design of his publication as stated in the 
advertisement. And, in fact, it cannot be denied that this 
method of treating upon devotion is far more agreeable to 
the world than any one previously adopted," "Surely, 
surely," said I, "there can be no comparison between them, 
and I begin to hope you will fulfil your promise." 

''This," he replied, "will be more obvious presently; I 
have hitherto only spoken of piety in general. But to show 
you in detail how our Fathers have disburdened the prac- 
tice of it from every difiiculty; is it not unutterably conso- 
ling to the ambitious, to learn that they may have real re- 
ligion while they indulge an inordinate love of glory?" 
"What, Father, however excessive it may be?" "Yes; for 
it would always be a venial sin, unless this glory were de- 
sired merely to oppose, with the better prospect, both God 
and his country. Venial sins are no impediments to piety, 
since the greatest saints are not exempt from them. Lis- 
ten attentively to Escobar, tr. 2. ex. 2. n. 17: 'Ambition, 
w^hich is an inordinate appetite for power and glory, is of it- 
self a venial sin; but when greatness is desired in order to 



PROriNCIAL LETTERS. 109 

injure the state or to offend God the more readily, these ex- 
ternal circumstances render it mortal.'" <'This, Father, 
is a very comfortable doctrine," said I. **I believe so, in- 
deed; but not more so than what relates to avarice." *I 
know,' says Escobar, tr. 5. ex. 5. n. 154, *that the rich do 
not commit a mortal sin if they refuse to bestow alms out 
of their abundance upon the necessitous poor — sdo in gravi 
pauperum necessitate divites non dando superflua, nonpeccare 
mortaliter.' " <'If that be the case, Father, really I know 
nothing about the nature of sin." *'Pray then — to instruct 
you a little further — do not you suppose that a good opinion 
of one's self, and a perfect complacency in one's own works, 
is one of the most dangerous of sins? And should not you 
be astonished, were I to show you, that though this good 
opinion be without foundation, so far from being sinful, it 
is on the contrary a gift of God?" < 'Astonishing indeed. 
Father! Is it possible?" < 'Certainly it is, and our great 
Father Carasse, in his book, entitled d Summary of the 
Capital Truilis of Religion^ p. 2. p. 419, says, 'Retributive 
justice demands that every good work be rewarded either 
by applause or compensation. When a celebrated genius 
produces any performance, it is duly rewarded by public ap- 
probation; but when one of an inferior class labours hard to 
write something of no value, and therefore cannot obtain 
general applause, in order that he might not be without any 
recompense, God bestows upon him self-satisfaction, which 
it would be unjust and barbarous in the extreme to envy 
him. Thus God, who is perfectly just in all his proceed- 
ings, has capacitated even fi»ogs to enjoy their own croak- 
ing." 

"These," said I, '^are admirable decisions in favour of 
vanity, ambition, and avarice; but have you any apology 
for envy?^* "Why, this is a delicate point. We must ad- 
vert to the distinction of Father Barry in his Summary of 
Sins. His opinion is, c. 7. p. 123, ffth and sixth editions^ 
'That to envy the spiritual good of a neighbour is a mortal 
sin, but to envy his temporal good is venial." "Pray, Fa- 



110 PROYINCIAL LETTERS. 

ther, what is his reason for this?" <*You shall hear — *The 
good which is found in temporal things is so trifling and of 
so little consequence to heaven, that it is of no considera- 
tion at all in the view of God and saints.' " **But, Father," 
if this good be so trifling, and of such little value, how is it 
that you allow mankind to kill each other for the sake of it?" 
<*Ah! you always take things so perversely; this good, it 
was stated, is of no consideration in the sight of God, but 
quite otherwise before men." "True, I did not think of 
that; and I trust, by means of these distinctions, we shall 
have no mortal sins in the world." < <0h ! don't flatter your- 
self; for some are always mortal in their very nature, as for 
instance. Idleness." '^0 Father, are all the comforts of life 
to be lost at once then ?" "Hold, Sir — when you have heard 
the definition which Escobar gives of this vice, you will al- 
ter your opinion, tr. 2. ex. 2. n. 81: ^Idleness isagrief that 
spiritual things should be spiritual, as if it should be regret- 
ted that the sacraments are the source of grace; and it is a 
mortal sin." "0 Father! I cannot imagine that any one can 
be idle in such a sense." "So Escobar says a little onward, 
n. 105: *I confess it is very seldom that any person falls in- 
to the sin of idleness.' Now, surely you must see the ne- 
cessity of a good definition !" "I do, Father; and I well re- 
member your other definitions of assassination, ambush, and 
superfluities. But how is it you do not extend this method 
to cases of every description, and define every kind of sin 
in such a manner that indulgence may never be a crime?" 
"It is not always requisite to alter definitions, as you will 
perceive on the subject of good cheer, one of the greatest 
pleasures of life, and which Escobar allows in the following 
paragraph, n. 102, o£ the Practice of our Society: *Is it law- 
ful to eat and drink inordinately and without necessity, for 
the mere gratification of a voluptuous appetite? Yes, un- 
doubtedly, says Sanchez, if it do not injure your health, be- 
cause it is allowable for the natural appetite to enjoy all 
proper indulgence — an comedere, bibere, usque ad satietatem 
absque necessitate ob solam voluptatem, sit peccatum? Cum 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. Ill 

Sandio negative respondeo, modo non ohsit valetudini, qiiia 
lidte potest appetitus naturalis suis adibusfrui,' " 

'<0 Father,'' said I, '<this is the most complete passage, 
the most finished principle in all your system of morals, and 
the one of all others from which the most comfortable condu- 
sions may be deduced ! What, then, is not gluttony even a 
venial sin?" *'No — not as I have stated the case: but, ac- 
cording to Escobar, it may become so, n. 56, 4f without 
any necessity you stuif yourself with eating and drinking 
till you vomit — si quis se usque ad vomitum ingurgitet^' 

**But enough on this subject: — I proceed to the facilities 
we have invented for the avoidance of sin in the conversa- 
tion and intrigues of the world. One of the most embarrass- 
ing things to provide against is lying, when it is the object 
to excite confidence in any false representation. In this 
case our doctrine of equivocals is of admirable service, by 
which, says Sanchez, *it is lawful to use ambiguous terms 
to give the impression a different sense from that which 
you understand yourself,' Op. Mor, p. 2. 1. 3. c. 6. n. 13." 
*'This I am well aware of, Father." **Wehave," continued 
he, * 'published it so frequently, that in fact every body is ac- 
quainted with it: but pray, do you know what is to be done 
when no equivocal terms can be found?" *^No, Father." — 
*'Ha, I thought this would be new to you — it is the doctrine 
of mental reservations. Sanchez states it in the same place: 
*A person may take an oath that he has not done such a things 
though in fact he has, by saying to himself, it was not done 
on a certain specified day or before he was born, or by con- 
cealing any other similar circumstance which gives another 
meaning to the statement. This is in numberless instan- 
ces extremely convenient, and is always very just when it 
is necessary to your health, honour, or property." 

<'But, Father, is not this adding perjury to lying?" — 
No — Sanchez and Filiutius show the contrary, tr. 25. ch. 
11. n.331: because *it is the intention which stamps the 
quality of the action:' and the latter, in page 328, furnishes 
another and surer method of avoiding lying. After say- 



112 PROVlNCIAIi LETTERS. 

iHg in an audible voice, I swear that I did not do this, you 
may add inwardly to-day; or after affirming aloud I swear, 
you may repeat in a whisper J sai/; and then resuming the for- 
mer tone — -I did not do it. Now this you must admit is tell- 
ing the truth." <^I own it is," said I; *'but it is telling 
truth in a whisper, and a lie, in an audible voice: besides, 
I apprehend that very few people have sufficient presence of 
mind to avail themselves of this deception." <'Our Fathers," 
answered the Jesuit, <'have in the same place given direc- 
tions for those who do not know how to manage these nice- 
ties, so that they may be indemnified against the sin of ly- 
ing, while plainly declaring they have not done what in 
reality they have, provided Hhat, in general, they intended 
to give the same sense to their assertion which a skilful man 
would have contrived to do.' 

<*Now tell the truth, have not you sometimes been embar- 
rassed through an ignorance of this doctrine?" ** Certain- 
ly." — <*And will you not admit too that it would often be 
very convenient to violate your word with a good con- 
science!" ^'Surely, one of the most convenient things in 
the world!" '*Then, Sir, listen to Escobar, tr. 3. ex, 3. n. 
48; he gives this general rule: 'Promises are not obligatory 
when a man has no intention of being bound to fulfil them; 
and it seldom happens that he has such an intention, unless 
he confirms it by an oath or bond, so that when he merely 
says / will do it, it is to be understood if he do not change 
his mind: for he did not intend by what he promised to de- 
prive himself of his liberty .' He furnislies some other rules 
which you may read for yourself, and concludes thus: 
*Every thing is taken from Molina and our other authors — 
omnia ex Molina et aliis:^ His, consequently, indisputable." 

^'Father," exclaimed I, "I never knew before that the di- 
rection of the intention could nullify the obligation of a pro- 
mise." ^*Now, then," said he, **you perceive this very 
much facilitates the intercourse of mankind. Our greatest 
difficulty, however, has been to regulate the conversation 
between men and women, for our Fathers are more reserv- 



PROVIXCIAT. LETTERS. 1 1 .1 

ed on tlie subject of chastity. Tliey treat of questions in- 
deed sufficiently curious and indulgent, but principally in 
relation to persons married or betrothed.'' 

Here I was informed of some of the most extraordinary 
questions imaginable. They would absolutely fill many let- 
ters, but I refrain from even pointing out the citations, be- 
cause you show my letters to people of every descrii)tion, 
and I should not wish to gratify those whose only object is 
amusement. 

The only thing I can mention amongst the numberless pas- 
sages he pointed out in their writings, is that which you 
may find in the Summary of Sins by Father Bauny, p. 165, 
referring to certain little intimacies which he excuses, pro- 
vided the intention be rightly directed — as, how to pass for 
agalant; and you will be surprised to find, p. 148, a prin- 
ciple of morality stated relative to the power which hesajs 
that daughters possess of disposing of themselves without 
the consent of their parents. <^When this is done with the 
daughter's own consent, though the father has reason for 
complaining, yet neither the daughter, nor the person to 
whom she has prostituted herself, have done the father any 
injury, or violated justice with respect to him, because the 
daughter's purity is as much her own possession as her bo- 
dy, and she may do whatever she pleases with the latter, 
except committing suicide or cutting off a member. '' From 
this specimen you may form a judgment of the rest. 

Here a passage from a heathen poet occurred to me, who 
was a much better casuist than these divines, for he says, 
**The virginity of a daughter does not belong entirely to 
herself, put partly to the father and partly to the mother, 
without whom she cannot even dispose of herself in marri- 
age:" and I exceedingly doubt whether there be any judge 
who would not refuse to take the maxim of Father Bauny 
for a law. 

This is all I am able to relate of this conversation, which 

lasted so long that I was at length obliged to request the 

good Father to change the subject; which he did, and enter- 
15 



1 14 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

tained me with their regulations for female dress in the 
following manner: **We will not speak of those whose di- 
rect purpose is immodest, but as to others, Escobar says, 
tr. 1. ex 8. n. 5: <If they dress without any base intention 
and solely to gratify the natural taste they have for display 
— ob naturalem fastus inclinationem — it is either a venial sin 
or no sin at all;' and Father Bauny, in his Summary of Sins, 
c. 46. p. 1094, declares, ^Although a woman felt aware 
of the bad effect which her studious care in adorning her 
person would produce on the bodies and souls of those who 
should observe her thus ornamented with costly decorations, 
she. nevertheless would commit no sin by making use of such 
attire;' and he cites our Father Sanchez as of a similar opin- 
ion." 

^<But what answer do your authors return to those pas- 
sages of Scripture which so severely reprehend the smallest 
inconsistencies of this nature?" ^^Lessius," said he, *4ias 
very learnedly replied to this, BejiisU 1. 4. c. 4. d. 14. by 
stating, that 'those precepts of Scripture regarded only the 
ladies of that age, who were required to furnish an edifying 
example of modesty to the heathen.'" *'Pray, Father," 
inquired I, ^'whence did he obtain that information?" 
<*Pshaw! It signifies nothing where he obtained it; the sen- 
timents of these great men are always probable in them- 
selves. But Father le Moine suggests a limitation of this 
general license, for he would not allow it to old women. 
This occurs in his Easy Devotion, p. 127, 157, 163: 'Young 
ladies have a natural right to adorn their persons. It is al- 
lowable at a time of life which is the very flower and bloom 
of existence. But at that period they must stop: it would 
be strange and unseasonable to seek for roses in the snow, 
and stars should only appear constantly at a ball, because 
they have the gift of perpetual youth. It is best, therefore, 
to consult reason and a good looking-glass, to yield to de- 
cency and necessity, and retire at the approach of night.'* 
* 'Very judicious." "But," continued he, "that you may 
see how careful our Fathers have been upon every point, I 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 1 1 5 

must state, that permitting women to practise gaming, and 
perceiving that such an allowance would be often useless, if 
they were not also supplied with pecuniary resources for 
the purpose, they have established another maxim in their 
favour, which is to be found in Escobar in the chapter on 
Thieving, tr. 1. n. 13: *A woman may game, and for this 
purpose take money secretly from her husband.'" 

<*This is noble, Father," said I. **0h, but there are 
many other things to be said — we must, however, omit them 
for the sake of mentioning maxims of still greater impor- 
tance, whicli very materially facilitate the practice of pie- 
ty; for instance, the manner of attending upon mass. Our 
great divines Gaspar Hurtado de Sacr. t. 2. d. ^. disp. 2. 
and Conick, q. 83. a. 6. n. 197, state, that 4t is sufficient to 
present the body at mass, though the spirit be absent: 
provided the countenance indicate a respectful gravity.' Vas- 
quez goes further, by saying, 'It is enough to hear mass, 
though you have no intention of really performing any 
thing.' All this is likewise to be found in Escobar, tr. 1. 
ex. 11. n. 74 and 107, and again, tr. 1. ex. 1. n. 116, where 
he explains the subject by the example of those who are com- 
pelled to go to mass, but who resolve to pay no attention to 
it ' *Truly, Father, I could never have believed this, if I 
had heard it from any other quarter." ' 'Undoubtedly," 
said he, ''it does require the authority of these distinguished 
writers, as well as that of Escobar, who says, tr. 1. ex. 11. 
n. 31: 'A wicked intention, such as unchaste desire, united 
with the hearing of mass as it ought to be attended, is no 
prevention of the due fulfilment of the duty — nee obest alia 
prava intentio, ut aspidendi libidinose foeminas.' 

"Turrianus, one of our learned authors, suggests, how- 
ever, a still more agreeable sentiment, Select.]^. 2. d. 16. 
dub. 7: 'You may hear half a mass of one priest and ano- 
ther half of another,- indeed you may hear first the end of 
one mass and afterwards the beginning of another' — nay 
more, he adds, 'You may hear two halves of a mass at the 
same time of two different priests, when one begins a mass, 



116 PKOVINCIAL IiKTTJSRS. 

and the other is at the elevation of the host, because the at- 
tention may be given to both at the same time, and two half 
masses make one whole one — du3e medietates unam missam 
constihmnt^ Our Fathers Bauny, tr. 69? 9. p. 312;Hurtado 
de Sacr, t. 2. de Missa, d. 5. diff. 4; Azorius, p. 1. 1. 7. 
cap. 3. q. 3. have given a similar opinion^ and Escobar af- 
firms the same in his chapter respecting *the Practice of 
hearing Mass according to our Society,' tr. 1. ex. 11. n. 
73; and you will see the consequences he deduces in the same 
book in the several editions printed at Lyons, in the years 
1644 and 1646: *Hence I conclude that mass may be heard 
in a very short time; as, for example, if you happen upon 
four masses at once, so arranged, that when one begins, ano- 
ther may be at the Gospel, another at the Consecration, and 
the last at the Communion.'" '*True, true, Father; and 
one might hear mass in Notre Dame by this means in an 
instant." <<You perceive then, I trust, that nothing could 
be better managed to facilitate the duty of hearing mass. 

**But I wish to show you in what manner the use of Sa- 
craments is smoothed, especially that of Penitence. It is 
in this particular that you will discover the extr:eme kind- 
ness of our indulgent Fathers, and you will be astonished 
that the devotion which strikes the whole world with won- 
der, has been treated with such prudence and sagacity by 
our Fathers, Hhat having destroyed that scare-crow which 
devils had placed at the gate, they have rendered penance 
more easy than vice and voluptuousness: so that, to use the 
language of father le Moine, p. 244 and 291 of his Easy 
Devotion — 'simply to live is incomparably more difficult 
than to live piously.' Is not this a marvellous change?" 
**Upon my word, Father, it is; but I cannot forbear express- 
ing my mind. I am very apprehensive that you are tak- 
ing bad measures, and that this indulgence will disgust 
more than it will gratify the world. Mass, for instance, is 
so great and so holy a thing, that your authors would suf- 
fer materially in the estimation of a great many people, 
were they to see the manner in which they speak of it.' 



PROVIXCIAL LETTERS. UT 

**This, to be sure, is true enough respecting some; but are 
you not aware that we accommodate people of every descrip- 
tion? It seems that you do not remember what I have so fre- 
quently mentioned; but I propose to renew the subject the 
very first opportunity, deferring at present our conversa- 
tion upon the mitigating expedients with regard to confes- 
sion. I shall make this so plain that you will never forget 
it." 

We now parted; and our next conversation will I presume 
relate to their politics. 

I, am, &c. 



118 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 



LETTER X. 

Mitigating Expedients of the Jesuits with regard to the Sa- 
crament of Penitence, Their Maxims respecting Confes- 
sion, Satisfaction, Msolution, Occasions of Sin, Contrition, 
and the Love of God, 

Paris, JltigQ, 1656. 

Sir: I am not yet come to the investigation of the politics of 
the society, but I proceed to one of its great principles. You 
will now have an opportunity of seeing those allowances in 
reference to confession, which most certainly constitute the 
very best expedient the Jesuits could have devised to concili- 
ate all and oifend none. It was necessary to know this be- 
fore we advanced further, for which reason the Father con- 
sidered it proper to give me the following instructions: — 

**You have seen, by what I have already stated, how suc- 
cessfully our Fathers have laboured to sliow by their su- 
perior wisdom, that many things are permitted now which 
were formerly deemed forbidden; but as some sins are still 
indefensible, and the only remedy for them is confession, it 
has been thought necessary to obviate the difficulty in the 
manner I am about to mention. And after showing you in 
our past conversation how certain conscientious scruples 
may be removed, by proving that what was once supposed 
to be sinful, really is not so, it only remains for me to point 
out the mode of expiating real sins with facility, by mak- 
ing confession easy, which was formerly so difficult." 

**Pray, Father," said I, *^how is this accomplished?" 
^'By those admirable subtleties," said he, "which are pe- 
culiar to our society, and which our Flemish Fathers call 
(in a book entitled, The Image of the Primitive Age, — 1. S. 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 119 

or. 1. p. 401. and 1. 1. c. 2.) 'pious and holyfraudSf and a 
sacred artifice of devotion — piam et religiosam calliditatem 
et pietatis solertiam — in 1. 3. c. 8.' It is by these inven- 
tions that ^crimes are now expiated alacriusy with more glad- 
ness and zeal tlian they were once committed; so that many 
persons remove the stain of guilt as soon as it is perpetra- 
ted — plnrimi vise dtius maculas contrahunt, quam eluunf — 
as it is stated in the same passage." <'0h, I beseech you, 
Father," said I, '*teach me some of these useful pieces of 
finesse." <*Well, Sir, there is a considerable number of 
them; for, as there are many painful things in confession, 
we have applied lenitives to each of them: and as the princi- 
Dal difficulties consist in the shame of confessing certain sins, 
the careful particularity with which the circumstances must 
be explained, the penance which must be done, the resolu- 
tion not to return to the commission of the sin, the avoid- 
ance of occasions that lead to it, and the sorrow for the of- 
fence, I hope to show you that there is now nothing vexa- 
tious in all this, in consequence of the extreme care which 
has been taken to extract all the unpalatable bitterness out of 
so needful a remedy. 

*'To begin with the pain which the confession of some 
kinds of sin must occasion. As it is frequently very im- 
portant as you know to preserve the esteem of your confes- 
sor, is it not a fortunate circumstance that our Fathers, 
amongst whom are Escobar and Suarez, tr. 7. a. 4. n. 135. 
admit of having two confessors, *the one for mortal and the 
other for venial sins, for the purpose of maintaining a good 
reputation with your ordinary confessor — ut honamfamam 
apud ordinarium tueatur — provided only that advantage be 
not taken from this circumstance to continue in a state of 
mortal sin.' Another ingenious contrivance is afterwards 
suggested for confessing to your ordinary confessor, with- 
out his perceiving whether the sin was committed previous- 
ly or since your last confession: *this,' says he, *is managed 
by means of a general confession, and confounding your last 
sin with others, to which your self-accusation refers in the 



120 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

aggregate/ See also Prhic, ex. 2. n. 73. and you will be 
convinced that the decision of Father Bauny, TheoL Mor. 
tr. 49. 15. p. 137. is still more consolatory to those who 
are ashamed of acknowledging their relapses: 'Tlie confes- 
sor, excepting in certain cases, which rarely occur, has no 
right to inquire whether the sin of which the individual ac- 
cuses himself be habitual, nor is the penitent obligea to an- 
swer such a question; because he has no right to put the per- 
son confessing sins to the shame of divulging his frequent re- 
lapses and falls."' 

'<How can this be. Father? I should as soon be disposed 
to say that a physician has no right to ask his patient res- 
pecting the time he has been afflicted with a fever. Do 
not all sins differ from each other according to the diversi- 
ty of circumstances? And ought not a genuine penitent to 
disclose to his confessor the whole state of his conscience, 
with the same sincerity and frankness as if he were speak- 
ing to Jesus Christ, whose place is held by the priest? But 
is not that person very far from cherishing such a disposi- 
tion who conceals his frequent relapses for the purpose of 
veiling the enormity of his transgressions?" 

I saw that the good Father was prodigiously embarrassed; 
and he thought of evading the difficulty instead of resolving 
it, by urging upon my consideration another of their rules 
which only establishes a new disorder without in the least 
rectifying Father Bauny 's decision, and one which in my 
opinion is one of their most pernicious maxims, the most 
directly adapted to encourage sinners in their vices. <<I 
admit," said he, ^'that habit increases the malignity of sin, 
but does not change its nature; for which reason the penitent 
is not obliged to confess according to the law established 
by our Fathers and cited by Escobar, Priiu ex. 2. n. 39: 
*No one is obliged to confess more than the circumstances 
which change the species of his sin, not those which render it 
more odious. Hence Father Grenadossays, in 5. yart cont. 
7. t. 9. d. 9. n. 22: 'that if any one has eaten flesh in Lent, 
it is sufficient to accuse himself of having broken his fast, 



PROVlXriAT, LETTERS. 12 t 

without saying whether it was by eating flesh or making 
two meagre meals:' and, according to our Father Reginal- 
dus, tr. 1. 1. 6. c. 4. n. 116: ^A sorcerer who should make 
use of the diabolical art, is not obliged to avow this circum- 
stance; it is enough simply to declare that he deals in divi- 
nation without explaining whether it be by chiromancy or 
by covenant with the devil;' and Fagundez, of our society, 
p. 2. I. 4. c. 3. n. 17, states, that *a man is not required to 
confess the circumstances of a rape, if a degree of consent 
were obtained. ' Our Father Escobar introduces these state- 
ments in the same place, n. 41, 61. 62, with many other 
very curious decisions respecting the circumstances one is 
not necessitated to confess, which you may read at your 
leisure." 

"Very accommodating," said I, *'very accommodating ar- 
f(^ces of devotion indeed!'' '*Yes; but all would signify 
nothing if we had not contrived to mitigate the severity of 
penance which is very much opposed to confession. But 
now the most delicate have nothing to apprehend, since we 
have maintained in our theses in the College of Clermont, 
'that if the confessor impose a convenient and suitable pen- 
ance — convmientem — and yet he should not choose to ac- 
cept it, he may withdraw and renounce both the absolution 
and the penance imposed.' Escobar further states, in his 
Practice of Penance according to our society, tr. 7. ex. 4. 
n. 188, that, if the penitent declare that he will defer his 
penitence to a future world, and suffer in purgatory all the 
punishment due to his offences, then the confessor is to impose 
a slight penance to preserve the Sacrament entire, especial- 
ly if he knew that the penitent would not submit to a hea- 
vier one.'" '*If this be the case," observed I, '^confession 
should not be called the sacrament of penance." '^There,'* 
returned he, ''you are wrong; for it is proper to enjoin some 
one at least for the sake of the form." '^But, Father, do 
you conceive that a man deserves absolution, when he ob- 
jects to the least painful service to expiate his offences? 

And when people are in such a disposition of mind, ought 
16 



1^2 PROVIXCTAL LETTERS. 

you not rather to retain than remit sins? Have you a cor- 
rect idea of the extent of your ministry, and are you not 
aware that you possess tlie power of binding and loosing? 
Do you suppose it is lawful to bestow absolution indifferent- 
ly upon all who demand it, without previously l^nowing 
whether Jesus Christ looses in heaven those whom you loose 
upon earth?" 

«*Fine talking, truly. Sir! What! do you think we are so 
ignorant as not to know, that *the confessor is to make him- 
self the judge of the disposition of his penitent, both because 
he is under an obligation not to dispense the Sacraments to 
those who are unworthy of them, Jesus Christ having com- 
manded him to be faithful to his charge, and not to give the 
children's bread to dogs; and because he is to be judge, and 
it is the duty of a judge to judge justly, by releasing those 
who are worthy of it, and binding those who are unworthy, 
and also because he ought not to absolve those whom Jesus 
Christ condemns?' " <^Pray, Father, whose words are these?" 
*^I have been quoting Filiutius, tom. 1. tr. 7- n. S54." 
<'You surprise me; I concluded they were the expressions 
of one of the Fathers of the church. But this passage ought 
deeply to impress confessors, and make them extremely 
cautious in dispensing this Sacrament, to ascertain whether 
the sorrow of their penitents be sufficient, and whether their 
promises to avoid future transgressions be really admissi- 
ble." ^'There is no difficulty here," said the Father; <'Filiu- 
tius has taken care to prevent the confessors suffering any 
embarrassment; for after the words I have cited, he sug- 
gests this easy expedient — 'The confessor may make him- 
self quite easy about the disposition of his penitent; for if he 
do not discover sufficient indications of grief, the confessor 
has only to ask if he do not detest sin in his heart, and if he 
reply in the affirmative, he is obliged to believe him. The 
same may be said respecting his resolution for the future, 
unless he is under an engagement to make any restitution, 
or to avoid the next temptation. ' " < 'This passage. Father, 
I see plainly enough is from Filiutius.'' "There again you 



PROVINCIAI. LETTERS. V23 

are deceived, for he has taken it word for word out of Sua- 
rez, in 3 par. to. 4. disp. 32. sect 2. n. 2." **But, Father, 
this last quotation nullifies the former^ for confessors will 
no longer have it in their power to judge of the disposition 
of their penitents, since they are obliged to take their own 
assertion, even when they give no sufficient evidence of re- 
pentance. Is there so much certainty in these affirmations, 
that no further evidence can be requisite? I question whe- 
ther your Fathers have found, by experience, that all those 
who have given them promises have kept them faithfully. 
I am, indeed, much mistaken, if they have not frequently 
found the very reverse." * 'Pshaw," said he, <nhat signifies 
nothing; the confessors are nevertheless obliged to believe 
them. Father Bauny, wlio has thoroughly investigated 
this subject, in his Summary of Sins, c. 46. p. 1090, 1091> 
1092, concludes, that ^at all times when those who have often 
relapsed into sin without manifesting any signs of amend- 
ment, shall present themselves before a confessor, and tell 
him that they repent of what they have done and resolve to 
be better in future, he ought to believe their declaration, 
though it be presumed that such resolutions only proceeded 
from the lips and not the heart: |ind though afterwards such 
persons plunge into the same excesses, and even with great- 
er licentiousness, they may, notwithstanding in my opinion, 
receive absolution.' Now^, I trust, all your doubts are re- 
moved." 

"But, Father," continued I, "you impose, I think, a very 
serious responsibility upon the confessors, by requiring them 
to believe the very contrary of what they see." "You do 
not understand the matter; I mean to say, they are obliged 
to act and to absolve, as if they believed the resolution to be 
firm and constant, though they do not, in point of fact, be- 
lieve one syllable of it. This is what our Fathers Sua- 
rez and Filiutius proceed to explain; for, after saying that 
'the priest is obliged to believe his penitent upon his word" 
tliey add, 'it is not necessary that the confessor should be 
convinced that his penitent will execute his good dctermina- 



124 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

tion, nor even that it is probable; but it is sufficient that he 
thinks the general purpose exists in his mind at the moment, 
though in a very little time he is likely to relapse.' In this 
all our authors concur — ita docent omnes autores; and will 
you doubt of any thing unde? these circumstances?'* "But 
pray, good Father, what \\ ill become of the acknowledg- 
ment which Father Petau himself was obliged to make in 
his preface to Fen, pub, p. 4. *That the holy Fathers, Doc- 
tors, and Councils agree in this, as an undoubted truth, 
that the repentance which is preparatory to the Eucharist 
ought to be sincere, constant, courageous, not indolent and 
sluggish, nor subject to relapses?"' "But do you not per- 
ceive," said he, "that Father Petau is speaking of the an- 
cient church? And this is now so out of date, to use the phra- 
seology of our society, that according to Father Bauny, tr. 
49, 15. p. 95. the contrary alone is true. He remarks, 
'There are some authors who affirm that absolution ought 
to be refused to such as often relapse into the same sins, es- 
pecially if after being frequently absolved, no sign of amend- 
ment appears — others negative this sentiment. But the on- 
ly true opinion is, that it is not necessary to refuse absolu- 
tion; and though they do ijot profit by the good advice so of- 
ten given them, though they pay no regard to their repeat- 
ed promises to change their manner of living, though they 
take no pains to reform and purify themselves — no matter 
— the true opinion and what ought to be followed, whatever 
others may allege, is, that in all these cases absolution 
ought to be conferred:' and tr. 49, 22. p. 100: 'Absolution 
ought neither to be refused nor delayed to such as are in 
the habit of sinning against the laws of God, of nature, and 
of the church, though no one can see any hope of amend- 
ment — etsi emendationis futuree nulla spes appareat,"' 

"But, Father," returned I, "might not this assurance of 
always gaining absolution induce sinners" "I under- 
stand you," interrupting me — "but listen to Father Bauny, 
1), 15: *It is proper to absolve the person who avows that 
the expectation of being absolved induced him to sin with 



PROVINCIAL XETTERS. 125 

more readiness tlian he should have otherwise done without 
such an expectation:' and Father Caussin, in support of this 
proposition, says, p. 211, of his reply to Theol, Mor. that, 
<If this representation were not true, the use of confession 
would be nullified to the majority of mankind, and sinners 
would have no other remedy but a cord and a gallows.' " 
*'0h, Father, how these maxims will attract people to your 
confessionals!" "Yes," said he, *<you cannot imagine the 
numbers that come — *we are loaded and pressed down with 
a crowd of penitents — pxnitentium numero obruimur,^ as it 
is expressed in the Image of our first age, 1. 3. c. 8." "I 
know," said I, *'an easy method of affording you some re- 
lief; it is simply to oblige sinners to avoid the immediate oc- 
casions of sinning: you would be amazingly eased only by 
this single device." "Oh, Sir, we are not so anxious res- 
pecting relief; on the contrary, as it is stated in the same 
work, 1. 3. c. 7. p. 374: *Our society has for its object to 
labour in establishing virtue, to make war against vice, 
and to save a multitude of souls:' but as few souls are wil- 
ling to abandon the immediate occasions of sin, we have 
been obliged to define what is intended by immediate occa- 
sions. This may be found in Escobar on the Practice of 
our Society, tr. 7. ex. 4. n. 226: 'That occasion is not call- 
ed immediate, when the sin is but rarely committed, such 
as a sin perpetrated through a sudden transport of passion, 
three or four times a year in the house where you reside;' 
or, according to Father Bauny, *once or twice a month,' 
p. 1082: and again, p. 1089, of his French publication, 
where he proposes this question : < What ought to be done with 
masters and servants, and cousins of both sexes, living to- 
gether, who from this cause mutually induce each other to 
sin?'" "Separate them," said I, "surely." "True, and 
our author says the same, if they transgress often and almost 
daily; but if they offend but seldom, as once or twice in a 
month, and they cannot be parted without great inconveni- 
ence and detriment, they may receive absolution according 
to these authors, and among them we find Suarez, provi- 



126 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

ded they firmly promise to sin no more, and are truly sor- 
ry for the past. 

I understood his meaning perfectly; for he had before as- 
sured me that the confessor ought to be satisfied with a ver- 
bal regret. 

He continued — '^Father Bauny, p. 1083 and 1084, al- 
lows such as are engaged in these mrre immediate occa- 
sions, *to remain in them when they cannot be abandoned 
without becoming the subjects of public scandal, and thus 
suffering great inconvenience.' He advances the same idea 
in his moral Theology, tr. 4. de FctniU q. 13. p. 93 and 9. 
14. p. 94: 'A. priest may and ought to give absolution to a 
woman who has a man in her house with whom she often 
sins, if she cannot handsomely get rid of him, or has some 
reason for keeping him — sinon 'potest honeste ejicere, autha- 
beat aliquant causam retinendi — provided only that she pro- 
poses to have no more criminal connexion with him.* " 

**0h, father, the duty of abandoning these occasions of 
sinning is charmingly softened down, if persons be dispen- 
sed from it as soon as it is inconvenient; but, I suppose, they 
are at least obliged to separate when it is attended with no 
trouble or difficulty." **Yes; though there are some excep- 
tions; for Father Bauny says in the same place, *It is law- 
ful for any person to go into a house of ill fame to convert 
dissolute women though it be very probable he fall into sin 
himself; as, if he have on former occasions been frequently 
left to sin by their seductions; and though some doctors do 
not approve of this opinion, and do not consider it proper 
voluntarily to endanger one's own salvation to save a neigh- 
bour, I confess myself disposed to embrace the sentiment 
which they oppose." 

**This is a new order of preachers, Father! But pray 
what authority has Father Bauny to send persons on this 
kind of mission?" <<0n one of the principles of Basile 
Ponce," returned he, < ^quoted in the same place. I spoke 
of it before, as I think you may remember: An occa- 
sion of sin may be sought directly and by itself, jmrnd 



PROVIXCIAL LETTERS. 1£7 

et per se, for the temporal or spiritual good of oneself or 
neighbour."' 

I was now struck with such horror that I was on the point 
of breaking off the conversation, but managed to restrain 
my feelings in order to see the end of it, and contented my- 
self with asking, *^What agreement subsists between this 
doctrine and that of the Gospel, which requires us to pluck 
out our eyes, and debar ourselves even of necessaries, when 
prejudicial to our salvation? And how can you conceive that 
a man who indulges in these occasions of sin, can sincerely 
detest it? Is it not, on the conti'ary, too visible, that he is 
not affected with its enormity as he ought to be, and that 
he is far from that true conversion of heart which would 
make him love God as much as he had before loved crea- 
tures ?*' 

<*How surprisingly you talk!" said he: <*that would be 
true contrition: you do not seem to know, as Father Pinte- 
reau says in the second part of Abbe de Boisic, p. 50, that 
^all the Fathers unanimously teach that it is an error, 
amounting almost to a heresy, to represent contrition as ne- 
cessary, or to aflSrm that attrition alone, arising solely from 
the fear of iiell, which preserves the will from sinning, is 
not sufficient with the Sacrament.'* <'How, Father! is it 
almost an article of faith that attrition alone, originating 
merely in the fear of punishment, suffices with the Sacra- 
ment? I believe this doctrine is peculiar to your Fathers: 
for others who believe attrition to be sufficient with the Sac- 
rament, maintain that it should at least be mixed with some 
love to God. And moreover, it seems to me that even your 
own authors did not formerly regard this doctrine as so cer- 
tain; for your Father Suarez speaks of it in this manner, De 
Poen, p. 90. art. 4. disp. 15. sect. 4. n. 17: ^Though it be 
a probable opinion that attrition is sufficient with the Sac- 
rament, yet it is not certain, and] perhaps is false — non est 
certttf et potest esse falsa. If it be false, attrition is not suf- 
ficient to save a man; he therefore who dies knowingly in 
that state, voluntarily exposes himself to the moral danger 



128 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

of eternal damnation. This opinion is neither very ancient 
nor very common — nee valde antiquaj nee multum anti- 
quis,^ Sanchez intimates a similar uncertainty in his sum- 
mary, I. 1. c. 9. n. 34 : ^A sick man and his confessor who 
should satisfy himself in the hour of death with attrition and 
the Sacrament, would hoth commit a mortal sin, on account 
of the great danger of damnation to which the penitent 
would expose himself, if the opinion that attrition suffices 
with the Sacrament should not be true.' To the same pur- 
pose Comitolus, Resp, Mor* 1. 1. q. 32, n. 7, 8: *He is not 
too sure that attrition is sufficient with the Sacrament.' '* 

Here the worthy Father stopped me, exclaiming, '*Do 
you read our authors then? Very good — hut you will do bet- 
ter not to read them without some one of us: for by reading 
them alone, you see that you are ready to infer that these 
passages are opposed to those who at present maintain our 
doctrine of attrition, whereas we could have shown that no- 
thing tends more to promote it. How glorious is it for our 
Fathers to see their opinion so universally diffused, that, ex- 
cepting divines, there is scarcely any person but believes 
our doctrine of attrition to have been the uniform sentiment 
of the church ! When, therefore, you prove from our own 
Fathers, that only a few years ago this opinion was held 
uncertain; what is it but to allow our modern authors all the 
honour of its establishment? 

"On this account, our intimate friend Diana believed he 
was obliging us by pointing out its gradual progress to per- 
fection, which he has done, p. 5. tr. 13. by saying, 'that for- 
merly the ancient scholastics maintained that contrition was 
necessary immediately after committing a mortal sin: but 
since that period it was not thought obligatory, except on 
festival days, and afterwards, when some extraordinary 
calamity threatened a whole nation; and, according to others, 
it ought not to be long deferred when death w^as evidently 
approaching. However our Fathers Hurtado and Vasquez 
have given an admirable refutation of all these opinions, 
proving that contrition is necessary only when a person can- 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 129 

not be absolved any otherwise, or is at tlie point of death.' 
But to proceed, respecting the wonderful progress of this 
doctrine, I must add, that our Fathers Fagundez, Prsec. 2. 
t. 2. c. 4. n. 13., Granados, in Spar, contr. 7. d. 3, sect. 
4. n. 17., and Escobar, tr. 7- ex. 4. n. 88. in the 'Practice 
of our Society,' have decided *that contrition is not neces- 
sary even in dying moments, because if attrition with the 
Sacrament be not sufficient at the point of death, it will fol- 
low, that attrition would not be sufficient with the Sacra- 
ment.' And our learned Hurtado de Sacr. d. 6. quoted by 
Diana, par. 5. tr. 4. Misal- r. 193. and by Escobar, tr. 7. 
ex. 4. n. 91, goes still further; only listen: 'Is the sorrow 
for sin which arises entirely from its temporal consequen- 
ces, as the loss of health or property, sufficient? — Here, a 
distinction is requisite: if it be thought that the evil is not 
sent immediately from the hand of God, this sorrow is not 
sufficient; but if it be believed that it is so sent, and in fact 
every evil, as Diana says, excepting sin, proceeds from him, 
this sorrow is sufficient.' Escobar states the same in his 
^Practice of our Society,' in which Father Francis Lamy 
concurs, tr. 8. disp. 3. n. IS." 

"You really surprise me, Father; for I see nothing in all 
this attrition but what is merely natural, and thus a sinner 
may render himself worthy of absolution, without any su- 
pernatural grace: but every one knows that was condemned 
as a heresy by the Council of Trent." **I should have 
thought the same," said he, "but yet it must be otherwise; 
for our fathers of the College of Clermont maintained in 
their theses of the 23d of May, and the 6th of June, 1644, 
col. 4. n. 1. 'That attrition may be holy and sufficient for 
the Sacrament, though it be not supernatural;' and in that 
of August, 1643, 'That attrition which is only natural is 
sufficient for the Sacrament, provided it be honest — ad sa- 
cramentum sufficit attritio naturaliSf modd honesta** 

"This is all that can be said, unless an obvious inference 
be deduced from these premises, that contrition is so little 
necessary to the Sacrament, that on the contrary it would 
17 



ISO PROVIN^CIAL tBTTERS. 

be detrimental to it, because, as it effaces sin by its own 
power, it would leave nothing to be done by the Sacrament. 
Thus our Father Valentia, the celebrated Jesuit, torn. 4. 
disp. 79. 8. p. 6: ^Contrition is not at all necessary to ob- 
tain the principal effect of the Sacrament, b*ut on the con- 
trary is rather an obstacle — imd obstat potius quo minus ef- 
fectus sequatur.* Nothing more can be wished in favour of 
attrition." ^*I am of the same opinion. Father,'^ said I; 
**but allow me to express my sentiment, and to show you 
to what extravagances, this doctrine leads. When you say 
that attrition, arising solely from the fear of piinishmentf is 
sufficient with the Sacrament for the justification of sinners, 
does it not follow that a person may expiate his sins, and 
be saved without ever loving God in the whole course of his 
life? But will your Fathers venture to maintain this princi- 
ple?" 

**I see," said he, <'by your question, that you want to know 
the doctrine of our Fathers respecting the love of God. It 
is the last and most important point in their morality, which 
you might have perceived by the quotations I have introdu- 
ced upon the subject of contrition. But pray do not inter- 
rupt me while I am furnishing some others of a more pre- 
cise nature upon the love of God, for the consequences re- 
sulting from them are considerable. Attend to Escobar, 
who relates the different opinions of our authors on this sub- 
ject, in Hhe Practice of the Love of God according to our 
Society,' tr. 1. ex. 2. n. 21. and tr. 5. ex. 4. n. 8: ^When,* 
he asks, <is a person obliged to cherish a real affection for 
God? Suarez says, 'it is sufficient to love him a little pre- 
vious to the moment of death,' without fixing the precise 
time: — Vasquez, *that it is enough to love him in the very 
moment of dying:' — others, *at Baptism;' others again, <at 
seasons of contrition;' and some, *upon festival days:' but 
our Father Castro Palao opposes all these opinions and with 
good reason — meritd, Hurtado de Mendoza states, that 
<we are under an obligation to love God once in a year, 
and that we are kindly treated in not being obliged to it 



PROVINCIAL LBTTEltS. 151 

more frequently:' but Father Coninck, that we are under an 
obligation to do so <once in three or four years' — Henriquez, 
'erery five years^' and Filiutius says, ^it is probable that 
we are not rigorously obliged to it every five years.' When 
then? — This question he refers to a wise man's own judg- 
ment." 

I allowed him to proceed w ith this 'nonsense, which was 
a surprising display of the insolence with which the human 
mind can sport with the love of God: — *'But," continued he, 
"our Father Anthony Sirmond, who excels upon this sub- 
ject in his admirable book on the ^Defence of Virtue,' where, 
as he tells the reader, he speaks in plain terms, expresses 
himself thus,— tr. 2. sect. 1. p. 12, 13, 14, &c. *St. Thom- 
as says, we are under obligation to love God as soon as we 
acquire the use of reason;' but that is a little too soon. Sco- 
tus mentions every Sunday; but on what authority ? Others, 
in seasons of grievous temptation: right, in case this is the 
only way of avoiding temptation. Sotus states, that when 
some great benefit has been conferred by God, it is well to 
thank him for it. Others speak of the hour of death: that is 
too little. Nor do I believe it to be necessary on every sa- 
cramental occasion: attrition will suffice with confession, if 
it be convenient. Suarez says that we are obliged to love 
God some time: but at what time? You are to be the judge of 
that; he professes to know nothing about it. But if such 
a doctor as this does not know, I am at a loss to conceive 
who does.' And he concludes at last, that, in strict proprie- 
ty, we are only obliged to observe the other commandments, 
without cherishing any affection to God, and without hav- 
ing any inclination of mind towards him, provided we do 
not hate him: this is illustrated throughout his second trea- 
tise. You \\\\\ see it in every page, particularly in p. 16, 19, 
24, 28, where the following passage occurs: *God, in com- 
manding us to love him, is satisfied if we obey him in his 
other commands. If God had said, 'I will consign you to 
perdition, whatever obedience you render tome, unless you 
iilso give nic your heart, would this motive, think you, have 



122 PROVIXCIAjL lktteks. 

been well suited to the end which God has in view?' It is 
said, therefore, that we shall love God by doing his will, 
as if we loved him with the affections of the soul, and as if 
we were excited by love itself. If this should really be the 
case, so much the better; if not, we do not, however, strict- 
ly disobey the commandment of love, while performing these 
works; so that we are not so much commanded to love him — 
(pray observe the goodness of God!) as not to hate him.'j 

*'Thus have our Fathers discharged mankind from the 
painful obligation of actually, and with all the heart, lov- 
ing God: and so advantageous is this doctrine, thatjour Fa- 
thers Annat, Pintereau, Le Moine, and A. Sirmond him- 
self, have strenuously defended it whenever opposed. You 
have only to examine their replies to the Moral Theology, 
and that of Father Pintereau, in p. 2 of Abbe de Boisic, p. 
53, where you may judge of the value of this dispensation by 
the price it cost, the price of the blood of Jesus Christ. — 
The very crown and perfection of this doctrine, is its re- 
leasing from the troublesome obligation of loving God, which 
is the privilege of the evangelical as distinguished from the 
Jewish law. *It was reasonable,' says he, Hhat by the 
law of grace in the New Testament, God should remove 
the ii'ksome and difficult duty which w^as attached to the 
rigorous law of exercising an act of perfect contrition in 
order to justification, and that he should institute Sacra- 
ments to supply our defects, and to facilitate obedience; 
otherwise Christians, who are the children, could not recov- 
er the good graces of their Father, any more readily than 
the Jews, who were slaves, could obtain mercy from their 
God." 

'^Oh, Father," exclaimed I, ''you make me out of all pa- 
tience; I am struck with perfect horror at these statements." 
**It is not I that am responsible,'' said he. "I know very 
well," said I, *nhey are not your own words, but you cite 
them without any sign of disapprobation; nay, so far are 
you from detesting the autliors of these maxims, you hold 
them in the highest esteem for promulgating them. — 



PHOVIWCIAL LETTERS. 133 

Have you no apprehension that your concurrence renders 
you a partaker of their crimes? Can you he ignorant tliat 
St Paul judges worthy of death, not only the originators of 
wickedness, but those who consent to it? Was it not suffi- 
cient to allow mankind so many prohibited things by your 
palliatives and apologies? Must you also furnish them with 
the opportunity of perpetrating crimes which you admit to 
be inexcusable, by that assurance and facility of obtaining 
absolution which you offer them, though for this purpose you 
destroy the power of the priests, and oblige them to absolve, 
rather like slaves than judges, the most abandoned trans- 
gressors, without any change of life, without any sign of 
repentance but promises a thousand times violated, without 
penance, unless they choose it, and without avoiding occa- 
sions of sin, if such avoidance be attended with any inconve- 
nience? 

<*But you advance a step further, and the liberty you 
take of corrupting the most holy rules of Christian con- 
duct, extends even to the entire subversion of the divine 
laws. You violate the great commandment which contains 
both the law and the prophets — you stab piety to the very 
heart — you take away and quench the spirit which gives 
life — you affirm that the love of God is not necessary to 
salvation, and even assert, that *this exemption from loving 
God is the grand benefit which Christ has conferred upon 
the worlds' — all which is the very acme and perfection of 
impiety. 

<*What! — The price of the blood of Jesus Christ obtain 
an exemption from loving him ! ! — Previous to the incarna- 
tion mankind were obliged to love God, but since God so 
loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, shall the 
world thus redeemed, be discharged from the duty of loving 
him? Strange divinity of our days ! Marvellously strange! 
You dare to take away the anathema which St. Paul pro- 
nounces against those who love not the Lord Jesus Christ! 
You destroy what St. John says, that he that loveth not abi- 
deth in death/ and even the declaration of Christ himself-^ 



134 PROVINCIAL lETTERS. 

he that loveth me not, keepeth not my commandments. In this 
manner you make those worthy of enjoying the presence of 
God for ever, who never once loved him in all their lives! 
This surely is the mystery of iniquity complete ! Oh, my 
good Father, at length open your eyes; and, if not properly 
affected with the other monstrous doctrines of your casuists, 
let these latter specimens withdraw your confidence by 
their excessive extravagance ! With all my heart I cherish 
this wish for you and all your fraternity, and pray God that 
he would condescend to show them how false that light is 
which conducts to such precipices and dangers, and to fill 
the hearts of those with his love, who dare to dispense 
others from the obligation." 

After some further considerations of the same kind, I left 
the Jesuit; and it is scarcely probable I shall renew my 
visit. It need not, however, be any subject of regret to you; 
for if it were necessary to explain any more of their max- 
ims, I have read a sufiicient number of their writings to be 
able to tell you almost as much of their morality, and per- 
haps more of their politics, than he would have done him- 
self. 

I am, &c. 



PR0VI2ICIAL LETTERS. 135 



LETTER XI. 

ADDRESS TO THE REVEREND FATHERS OF THE JESU- 
ITS. 

Uidiculous Errors may be refuted by Raillery, The Frecau- 
tions it is necessary to wse, which, the Author has observed, 
but which have not been regarded by the Jesuits. The Im- 
pious Buffooneries of Fathers le Moine and Garasse. 

Reverend Fathers, Aug,. 18, 1656. 

I HAVE seen the letters you have circulated in opposition to 
those I wrote to one of my friends upon the subject of your 
morality, in which one of your principal points of defence is, 
my not having spoken of your maxims with sufficient serious- 
ness. This you repeat in all your communications, and go 
so far as to say *' that I have turned sacred things into ridi- 
cule." 

This reproach, my good Fathers, is very astonishing, and 
very unjust. In what passage have I turned sacred things 
into ridicule? You notice particularly the contract Mohatra 
and the story of John d*Alba: but do you call these sacred 
things? Is Mohatra something so venerable that it would 
be blasphemous to speak disrespectfully of it? And are the 
lectures of Father Bauny upon thieving, and which indu- 
ced d'Alba to practice it against yourselves, so sacred that 
you have a right to represent it as an act of impiety to ridi- 
cule them? 

What! Fathers, are the fancies of your authors to pass 
for articles of faith? And may not some passages in Escobar 
be laughed at, as well as the fantastic and unchristian deci- 
sions of some of your writers, without incurring the charge 
of making a jest of religion? Is it possible that you can so 



136 PROYIXCIAI. TiBTTEllS. 

often venture to repeat such absurd representations? Are 
you not seriously apprehensive, that, while censuring me 
for ridiculing your extravagances, you will furnish me with 
a new^ subject of mockery, namely, that very censure itself? 
that I shall retort it upon yourselves, by showing that I have 
ridiculed nothing in your writings but what was really ridicu- 
lous? and thus, by making a jest of your morality, I have 
absolutely been as far from ridiculing sacred things, as the 
doctrine of your casuists is remote from the holy doctrine of 
the Gospel? 

There is a wonderful difference, my good Fathers, be- 
tween laughing at religion and laughing at those who pro- 
fane it by their extravagant opinions. It would, indeed, be 
impious to disregard the truths which the Spirit of God has 
revealed; but it would be impious also not to treat with merit- 
ed contempt the falsehoods with which the vain spirit of man 
has opposed them. For, since you compel me to enter upon 
this subject, I beg you to consider, that as the great princi- 
ples of Christianity deserve our love and respect, those er- 
rors which are diametrically opposite to them merit con- 
tempt and hatred. There are two things sufficiently obvi- 
ous in the truths of our religion, a divine beauty which ren- 
ders them lovely, and a holy majesty which makes them 
venerable; and there are two observable peculiarities in er- 
rors, an impiety which renders them horrible, and an im- 
pertinence which makes them ridiculous. For this reason 
the saints always cherish these two sentiments of love and 
fear for truth, and their wisdom is comprised in fear which 
is the principle, and love which is the end; and on the other 
hand, they have always entertained feelings of hatred and 
contempt for error, and their zeal is equally engaged in vig- 
orously resisting the malignity of the wicked, and in put- 
ting their extravagance and folly to the blush by ridicule. 

Do not then, good Fathers, pretend to make the world 
believe that it is unworthy of a Christian to laugh at your 
errors, since it would be very easy to convince those who 
do not know the fact, that this practice is just, that it is 



FROriNCIAL LETTERS. 



157 



just, that it is common with the Fathers of the church, and 
that it is authorised by Scripture; by the example of the most 
eminent saints, and even by God himself. 

Have you not observed that God both abhors and despi- 
ses sinners at the same time? And even at the very hour of 
their death, a time when their state is most deplorable and 
wretched, divine wisdom will unite mockery and ridicule 
with the anger which consigns them to everlasting punish- 
ment — in interitu vestro ridebo et snbsannabo. Acting upon 
a similar principle, the saints will do the same, since David 
intimates, that when they witness the condemnation of the 
wicked, *'the righteous shall see and fear, and shall laugh 
at him — videbunt justi et timebunt et super eum ridebunt.*^ 
Job speaks to the same purpose: '*the righteous shall laugh 
them to scorn — innocens subsannabit eos.'' 

But it is very remarkable on this subject, that the very 
first address of God to man, after his fall, was according to 
the Fathers, ironical — a poignant sarcasm. After Adam 
had transgressed, through the hope which the devil had ex- 
cited that he should be as God, the sacred writings state 
that the divine Being subjected him to the punishment of 
death, and after inflicting this melancholy mark of the dis- 
pleasure due to his offences, he derided him in the follow- 
ing words: '^Behold the man is become as one of us! — ecce 
Mam quasi unus ex nobis/ which is according to St. Chrysos- 
tom and other expositors, a keen and obvious irony, by which 
he cut him to the heart. "Adam," says Rupert, '^deserved 
to be thus ridiculed, and was made much more sensible of 
his folly by this ironical expression, than he could have 
been by any serious address." Hugh of St. Victor, after 
stating a similar idea, adds^ '*This irony was due to his sot- 
tish credulity, and this kind of raillery is an act of justice 
when the individual against whom it is directed really de- 
serves it." 

You see then, Fathers, that ridicule is sometimes best 

adapted to reclaim men from their wanderings, and is in that 

case an act of justice; because, as Jeremiah remarks, "The 
18 



I S3 PBOVINCIAi I.KTTEE1. 

works of those that go astray are worthy of laughter, be- 
cause they are vanity — vana sunt et risu digna;^^ and it is 
so far from being wicked to laugh at such persons, that, ac- 
cording to St. Augustin, it is an effect of divine wisdom: 
**The wise laugh at fools, because they are wise, not indeed 
from any wisdom of their own, but from that divine wisdom 
which will laugh at the death of the wicked." 

The prophets under immediate inspiration made use of 
the same kind of irony, as we see by the examples of Da- 
niel and Elijah. Specimens may be found also in the dis- 
courses of Christ himself; and St. Augustin remarks, that 
he chose to humble Nicodemus, who conceived himself a 
very skilful lawyer. Perceiving how much he was infla- 
ted with pride as a doctor of the Jews, he tried and aston- 
ished his presumption by the profundity of his inquiries, and 
having completely perplexed and confounded him, asked, 
"Art thou a master in Israel and knowest not these things?'* 
As if he had said, '^Proud ruler! acknowledge that thou 
knowest nothing !" Upon which St. Chrysostom and St. 
Cyril agree in remarking, <'That Nicodemus deserved to 
be so jeered." 

You see then, Fathers, if at this day persons were to set 
up to teach Christians as Nicodemus and the Pharisees did 
the Jews, and were ignorant of the principles of religion, 
maintaining, for instance, **that it is possible to be saved 
without ever loving God in the whole course of life," we 
should only be imitating the example of Jesus Christ by mak- 
ing a jest of their vanity and ignorance. 

I persuade myself that th^se holy examples will suflice 
to show, that ridiculing the errors and extravagances of 
mankind, is not acting contrary to the general conduct of 
the saints, and that the censure you pronounce is no less di- 
rected against the great doctors of the church — as St. Je- 
rome, in his letters and writings against Jovinian, Vigilan- 
tius, and the Pelagians — Tertullian in his Apologetic against 
the follies of idolatry — St Augustin against the monks of 



PBOVl^CIAX. JLETTERl. 189 

Africa, whom he calls the Hairy — St. Irenseus against the 
Gnostics — St. Bernard and the other Fathers of the church, 
who, having heen the imitators of the apostles, ought to be 
imitated by Christians in all succeeding ages; since, what- 
ever may be said, they alone constitute the true models for 
the present times. 

I cannot, therefore, think I have erred in following them; 
and having sufficiently explained this point, I shall do no 
more than quote the admirable language of Tertullian, 
which justifies my whole procedure. <'What I have done 
is only a skirmish before the battle. I have rather pointed 
out the wounds which maybe inflicted, than actually inflict- 
ed them myself. If there be citations which excite ridicule, 
it is because the subjects themselves lead to it. There are 
many things which deserve to be derided and jeered in this 
manner, lest they should acquire any kind of importance by 
a serious attack. Nothing is more worthy of laughter than 
vanity, and it belongs to truth to laugh because she is gay, 
and to sport with her enemies because she is certain of vic- 
tory. It is true we should be careful that our railley is not 
low and unbecoming; but when it can be adopted with pro- 
priety and address, it is our duty to avail ourselves of it." 
Is not this passage, Fathers, extremely appropriate to our 
subject? The letters I have hitherto written are but pre- 
ludes to tlie battle. I have done nothing at present but play, 
and <*pointed out rather the wounds that may be given you 
than inflicted them myself." I have merely cited passages 
from your authors, without making scarcely any remarks. 
So that, *^if they excite ridicule, it is because the subjects 
themselves lead to it." For really is anything better cal- 
culated to excite laughter, than to see so grave a subject as 
Christian morality filled with the grotesque fancies of your 
Fathers? Such a high conception was formed of those 
maxims, which, it was said, <*Jesus Christ himself revealed 
to the Fathers of your society," that when it is found, that 
<'a priest who has received money to say mass, may besides 
take more of others by giving up all his share in the sacri- 



140 PROVINCIAL LBTTBRi. 

ficc — that a monk is not excommunicated for relinquishing 
his habit when it is done to dance, to pilfer, or to frequent 
incog, houses of ill-fame — and that the precept of hearing 
mass is obeyed by hearing the four parts from as many dif- 
ferent priests at the same time" — when, I say, these and 
similar decisions are made public, it is impossible not to be 
surprised into a fit of laughter, because nothing produces it 
sooner than a wonderful disproportion between what w^e ex- 
pected and what we behold. And how was it possible to 
treat the great majority of these subjects otherwise, since, 
as Tertullian remarks, **to treat them seriously w^ould be 
to authorize them." 

What! is it necessary to employ the authority of Scrip- 
ture and of tradition^ to show that to stab an enemy behind 
his back and in ambush is treachery? And that to give 
money as a motive to induce the resignation of a benefice is 
simony? These are contemptible practices in themselves, 
which deserve to be jeered at and ridiculed. Inshort, what 
this ancient writer says, that **nothing is more worthy of 
laughter than vanity," and the rest of the same passage, 
applies here with such just and convincing force, that on*^ 
cannot hesitate in deciding whether folly may be ridiculed 
without violating decorum. 

Allow me to say. Fathers, that irony may be resorted to 
without any breach of charity, though this is one of the 
sins you charge upon me: for * 'charity obliges us sometimes 
to ridicule the errors of men that they may be induced to 
laugh at them themselves." As St. Augustin observes, 
Hgec tu misericorditer irride, utcis ridenda acfiigienda com- 
mendes* And the same charity sometimes requires us to 
retort with indignation, as we are taught by Gregory Na- 
zianzen, **the spirit of charity and meekness has its seasons 
of emotions and anger." In fact, to quote from St. Augus- 
tin, **Who will venture to affirm that truth ought to remain 
unarmed against falsehood, and that our adversaries may be 
allowed to terrify the faithful by their threatening words, 
or triumph over them by witticisms; but that the Catholics 



FBOYINCIAI. LBTTBRI. 141 

must only reply with a dull coldness and formality calcu- 
lated to lull the reader a sleep? Upon this principle, is it 
not obvious, that the most extravagant and pernicious er- 
rors may be introduced into the church, if they must not be 
treated with derision, through an apprehension of offending 
against decorum, or repressed with zeal, through fear of 
being accused of uncharitableness? 

And will you really admit, Fathers, that one man may 
murder another to avoid a box on the ear, or any similar 
affront, and not allow a refutation of a public error of such 
consequence? You assume the liberty of saying, that **a 
judge may conscientiously retain the gains of injustice," and 
the world must not contradict you. You print, with the 
privilege and approbation of your doctors, that *'a man may 
be saved without ever having loved God," and will you in- 
terdict those who shall defend the true faith, by declaring 
that an attack upon you is an offence against charity, and 
I'idiculing your maxims is irreconcileable with Christian 
modesty? I really question whether any persons can be found 
to believe you; nevertheless, if there be individuals who ima- 
gine that I have violated the charity I owe you, by decry- 
ing your morality, I only wish them to examine attentively 
how they came by such an idea; for they may suppose that 
it results from their zeal, which cannot without scandal en-^ 
dure to witness the accusation of a neighbour; I would be- 
seech them to consider that at least it is not impossible it 
may proceed from some other cause, and probably from a 
secret dislike, often concealed from our own perceptions, 
which an unholy principle within us never fails of exciting 
against those who oppose moral irregularities. 

In order to supply a rule for ascertaining the true princi- 
ple of this zeal, I would inquire, whether at the time they 
are complaining of the treatment endured by a religious or- 
der, they are still more distressed that this same religious 
body treat truth in such a manner? If indignant not only at 
my letters, but much more at the maxims they quote and 
expose, I should admit that their resentment partakes of 



142 PROTINCIAL LBTTBR8. 

something of zeal, though of a nature not very enlightened, 
and then the passages here introduced will he sufficient to 
open their eyes. If displeased, however, at the reproofs, 
and not at the things against which they are levelled; real- 
ly, my Fathers, I cannot help repeating they are grossly 
deceived, and their zeal is miserably blind. 

What, I demand, can be a more strange kind of zeal than 
to be irritated against those who prosecute public crimes, 
indeed, but not the persons who commit them? What new 
order of charity is this, which takes offence at the exposure 
of glaring errors, but is not at all affected to see the total 
subversion of morality by the propagation of these errors? 
Were these persons in danger of assassination, would 
they be offended at the conduct of an individual who should 
step forward to forewarn them of their danger, and instead 
of going out of their way to avoid it, trifle away time in 
complaining of his want of charity, who had ventured to ex- 
pose the criminal intention of the assassins? Are they en- 
raged when desired not to eat of a poisoned dish, or not to 
enter a town where the plague is raging? 

How then is it that they consider it as uncharitable to ex- 
pose those maxims which are injurious to religion, and on the 
contrary they believe it uncharitable not to discover what is 
prejudicial to health and life? Unless the reason be that 
their attachment to life induces them to receive every thing 
well which conduces to its preservation, while the indiffer- 
ence they feel respecting truth not only occasions their ta- 
king no zealous part in her defence, but makes them dis- 
pleased at the efforts of others to demolish falsehood. 

Let such persons, therefore, consider as before God, how 
shameful and how dangerous to the church are the princi- 
ples of morality which your casuists industriously circulate — 
how scandalous and licentious is the liberty which they 
have introduced into the system of morals — and how obsti- 
nate and violent is the hardihood with which you maintain 
them: and if they do not believe it is time to resist the pro- 
gress of such disorders, their blindness will be as deplora- 



PB0yi2f«IAX. LBTTBBS. 145 

bleas yours, for both you and they have equal reason to fear 
the language of St. Augustin on the words of Jesus Christ: 
<*\yo unto yoa, ye blind guides!" — Vee cdecis ducentibus. 

But that you may no longer give or receive false impres- 
sions, allow me to state, — though. Fathers, I am ashamed 
to undertake to inform you, what it is in fact your duty to 
teach — but I beg leave to state some of those marks which 
the Fathers have specified, forjudging whether rebukes pro- 
ceed from a pious and charitable motive, or from a spirit of 
impiety and resentment. 

The first of these evidences is, that a spirit of piety in- 
variably prompts a man to speak with truth and sincerity: 
but envy and hatred resort to falsehood and calumny; splen-^ 
dentia et vehementia sed rebus veris, says St. Augustin. 
Whoever makes use of falsehood is actuated by a diabolical 
influence. No possible mode of direciin^ the intention can- 
sanction calumny, and though you were to gain over the 
whole world by such a proceeding, it cannot be allowable 
to vilify the innocent, because we must not perpetrate the 
least evil for the sake of acquiring the greatest good; for, as 
Scripture asserts, "the truth of God does not stand in need 
of our lie." St. Hilary also says, "It is the duty of the ad- 
vocates of truth to advance nothing but what is true." I can 
say, Fathers, as in the siglit of God, that I detest nothing 
so much as offending against truth, even in the slightest de- 
gree; and I have always taken very particular care, not only 
not to falsify, which would be horrible indeed, but not in the 
least to alter or distort the sense of a passage; so that if I 
might venture on this occasion to adopt the words of St. Hi- 
lary, I could say, "if the things we afiirm be false, let our 
words be accounted infamous; but if we prove that our re- 
presentations are public and notorious, it is not departing 
from apostolic modesty and liberty to inflict censure." 

It is not sufficient however, Fathers, to utter only what is 
true, we must not even state all that is true: for it is proper 
to record only what it is useful to disclose, and not those 
circumstances which merely tend to wound without produ- 



144 PKOVINCIAL LETTERS. 

cing any salutary effect. Hence, as the first rule is to speak 
the truth, the second is to speak it with becoming discre- 
tion. *'The wicked," says St. Augustin, * ^persecute the 
good by suffering themselves to be hurried forward by the 
blind impulse of passion, whereas the good pursue the wick* 
ed with a wise discretion, in the same manner as a surgeon 
will consider what he lances, while the murderer is perfect- 
ly regardless where he strikes." You, my good Fathers, 
well know, that I have avoided citing some maxims of your 
authors which would have deeply wounded you, though 
I might have introduced them without sinning against dis- 
cretion any more than many learned Catholics themselves 
have done before. Every person who is at all conversant 
with your writers, must be aware how much I have spared 
you; moreover, I have not uttered a syllable against any in- 
dividual in particular, for I should be extremely sorry to 
expose secret and personal faults, whatever proofs I might 
have in my possession; this would be an unjustifiable piece 
of malignity, and what ought never to be done unless 
the good of the church rendered it absolutely necessary. 
It is obvious, then, that I have not been wanting in discre- 
tion, while I have felt obliged to animadvert upon your 
maxims and morality, and that you have much greater rea- 
son to praise my reserve than to blame my indiscretion. 

The third rule is, that when it is requisite to employ rail- 
lery, piety demands that it should be employed only against 
errors, not against sacred things; but a spirit of buffoonery, 
impiety, and heresy ridicules even what is most sacred with 
indiscriminating severity. I have already justified myself 
in reference to this {Particular, and one is indeed far enough 
from being liable to this fault (ridiculing sacred things,) 
when animadverting upon the maxims quoted from your au- 
thors ! 

Lastly; for I will mention but one more rule, which is the 
principle and end of all the rest — the spirit of charity pro- 
duces an ardent desire for the salvation of those whom she 
reproves, and prays for the blessings of God at the same time 



P!{<)VI\( lAL Ll'/i rijis. 145 

lliiit she addresses her censures to men. "We ought al- 
ways," says St. Augustin, "to preserve charity in the heart, 
even when it is necessary to act outwardly in a rough man- 
ner, and to lash them with a severe, but it should be with a 
kindintentioned violence; — their benefit ought always to be 
preferred to their gratification." 

I believe, Fathers, there is nothing in my letters to evince 
any contrariety of feeling to this desire, and charity re- 
quires you to believe that this is in reality my wish when 
you can see nothing contrary to it. You cannot, therefore, 
it seems, point out any violation of this rule, er of any other 
which charity obliges me to follow; and for this reason you 
have no right to say, that I have offended in any thing I 
have done against this heavenly principle. 

But if you feel desirous of seeing in a few words a speci- 
men of that conduct which offends against these rules, and 
which bears the genuine marks of a spirit of buffoonery, en- 
vy, and hatred, I will furnish you with some examples; and 
that they may be the better known and the more familiar to 
you, I shall extract them from your own writings. 

I shall begin with the unbecoming manner in which your 
authors treat of sacred subjects, in their railleries, their gal- 
lantries, and their serious discources. Do you imagine that 
the ridiculous stories of your Father Binet, in his Consola- 
tion for the sicky are adapted to the professed design of af- 
fording Christian Consolation to those whom God afflicts? 
Will you affirm that the profane and coquettish manner in 
which your Father le Moine speaks of piety in his Easy De- 
votion^ is more adapted to excite respect, or to produce con- 
tempt for the idea which he suggests of Christian virtue? 
Does his book a^ Moral Pictures breathe any thing, whether 
in prose or verse, but a spirit of vanity and worldliness? Is 
the ode in the seventh book, entitled The Praise of Modesty, 
where he shows that ''every thing beautiful is red, or liable 
to become so," worthy of a priest? This ode was composed 
for the purpose of comforting a lady whom he calls Delphi* 

na, because she was very apt to blush. In everv stanza he 
19 



146 TROVIXCIAL LETTERS. 

says that some of the most valuable things are red, as roses, 
granites, the mouth, the tongue; and amongst these gallan- 
tries so disgraceful to a monk, he dares with inexpressible 
insolence to join those blessed spirits that stand in the pre- 
sence of God, of whom no Christian ought to speak but with 
the utmost respect. 

The glorious cherubs of the sky. 
Who wave their golden wings on high, 
Whom God enhghtens with his eyes. 
And with his breath their zeal supplies: 
These splendid spirits, as they tread 
Celestial fields in flaming red. 
Or to themselves or God they owe 
The immortal blaze in which they glow. 
And fan with mutual wings and love 
Each other in the realms above: 
But, oh DelpMnay in thy face, 
We see a still diviner grace ! 

What say- you to this, my good Fathers? What think you 
of the preference given to Delphina's blush above the ardors 
of those blessed spirits who breathe nothing but charity? 
And of the comparison of a lady's fan with those mysterious 
wings? Does it not appear exceedingly christian in the 
mouth of a priest who consecrates the body of Jesus Christ? 
I know that this is nothing but a gallant rhodomontade, and 
he is only laughing; but is not this making a jest of sacred 
things? And is it not a fact, that if he were to have justice 
done him, he could not escape a censure? even though he 
should plead, which is not less censurable, the reason which 
he assigns in his first book, '^that the Sorbonne possesses no 
jurisdiction over Parnassus, and the errors of that part of 
the world are not subject either to censure or inquisition;'* 
as if nothing could be blasphemous or impious but in prose! 
But even this will not avail to defend another passage in the 
preface to the same book: — <*The water of the river on 
whose banks he composed his verses, is so adapted to make 
poets, that though it should be changed into holy water, it 
eouldnever cast out the demon of poetry:" nor can any apo- 



PROVING lAL LETTERS. 147 

logy be offered for your Father Garasse in his Summary of 
the principal Truths of Religion, p. 649, where he adds blas- 
phemy to heresy in speaking of the sacred mystery of the 
incarnation: — <'The human personality was grafted or 
mounted upon the personality of the word" — not to men- 
tion many other things — such as respecting the name of 

Jesus, usually represented thus, IHS. *'Some," says he, 
*^take away the Cross, in order to read the simple characters 
IHS, which is Jesus stripped and robbed." 

Thus unbecomingly do you treat the truths of religion, 
contrary to that inviolable rule which requires every one to 
speak of them with reverence. But you offend no less against 
that rule which demands truth and discretion upon this sub- 
ject. What is more common than calumny in your wri- 
tings? Are those of Father Brisacier sincere? And does 
he speak the truth, when he says, p. 4. par. 24 and 25, that 
*<the nuns of Port Royal do not pray to the saints, and have 
no images in their church ?" Are not these most outrageous 
falsehoods, when the contrary is seen by all Paris? And 
does he speak with discretion when he attacks the pure and 
austere innocence of those virgins, whom he calls '^girls 
without penitence, disregardful of the sacraments, living 
without the holy communion, foolish, fantastic, calagans, 
desperate, &c. or what you please," blackening them by so 
many other contemptuous, terms, as to draw down upon his 
head the ecclesiastical censure of the archbishop of Paris? 
What do you think of the calumnies he circulates against 
priests of the most irreproachable morals in the first part of 
his work, p. 22., asserting that <^they practise novelties in 
confession to entrap the beautiful and the innocent;" and that 
*'he should be terrified to mention the abominable crimes 
which they perpetrate?" Is it not an insufferable piece of 
rashness to advance such odious impositions, not only with- 
out proof, but without the least shadow or appearance of 
it? I shall refrain from any further illustrations at pres- 
ent, deferring it to anotlicr opportunity, when I caiibemorc 



148 PROVINCIAL LETTEKS. 

diifuse; for I have more to say upon this subject, but I have 
now given sufficient specimens of your violations both of 
truth and discretion. 

It may perhaps be said, that at least you do not transgress 
the last rule, which demands a desire for the salvation of 
those who are the objects of reprehension, and that you 
cannot be accused of it, without violating the secret of your 
heart, which is known only to God. It is indeed strange, 
Fathers, but nevertheless it is a fact, that while your hatred 
against your adversaries has led you to wish their everlast- 
ing perdition, your blindness has been such as to discover 
to view such an abominable desire, and so far from secret- 
ly forming any wish for their salvation, you have made pub- 
lic vows for their damnation. The city of Caen can testi- 
fy this to the great scandal of the church, and you have 
since dared to defend this diabolical conduct even at Paris 
and in your publications. Nothing surely can add to these 
monstrous impieties — to mock and speak contemptuously of 
the most sacred things — to calumniate virgins and priests 
by the most daring and scandalous falsities, and then to 
form desires and utter vows for their damnation ! Wheth- 
er this confounds you I cannot tell, nor do I know how you 
came to think of accusing me of a want of charity — me, who 
have spoken with so much strictness and moderation as not 
to make a single reflection upon the horrible violations of 
charity of which you have yourselves been guilty in your de- 
plorable transports of rage. 

I shall conclude by referring to one other charge you have 
preferred against me; it is, that amongst the numerous max- 
ims I have cited, there are some which have already been 
objected against you, whence you complain of my '^repeat- 
ing to your disadvantage what has been said before." I 
answer, the reason of this recurrence to the objections al- 
ready made, is that you have not in tlie least profited by the 
statement of them. What good Ijas resulted from the rep- 
resentations of so many learned doctors and the whole uni- . 
versity? What did your Fathers Annat, Caussin, Piute- 



rilOVINCIAL LETTERS. 149 

reaii, and le Moine do in their replies, but accumulate re- 
proaches upon the heads of those who gave them salutary 
advice? Have you ever suppressed the volumes which con- 
tain such infamous maxims? Have you reprimanded their 
authors? Are you become more circumspect? Is it not 
since that time that Escobar has been so often reprinted in 
France and the Low Countries, and that your Fathers Cel- 
lot, Bagot, Bauny, Lamy, le Moine, and others, continue 
to publish the same things every day, and even new ones in 
as licentious a manner as ever? Complain no more then, 
my good Fathers, I beseech you, either of my reproaching 
you with maxims which you have not yet relinquished, or 
of my objecting against your new ones, or of my holding 
tliem all up to ridicule together. You have nothing more 
to do than to reflect upon them, to produce your own con- 
fusion and my vindication. Who can, without laughing, 
look at Father Bauny's decision upon the burning of barns? 
or that of Father Cellot upon restitution? or the rule of 
Sanchez in favour of conjurers? or the manner in which 
Hurtado proposes to avoid the sin of duelling, by only walk- 
ing in afield and waiting for somebody? or the compli- 
ments of Father Bauny to varnish over usury — to sanction 
simony by a turn of the intention — to avoid falsehood by 
speaking alternately in a whisper and in an audible voice — 
with the other opinions of your ^ra^es^ doctors ? Have I 
need of any further vindication? x\nd can any thing better 
be devised than, as Tcrtullian says, **to laugh at the vanity 
and weakness of such opinions ?" 

But, my good Fathers, that corruption of morals which 
your maxims superinduce, merits a different treatment, and 
we may very well inquire with Tertullian, *'Am I to laugh 
at their folly or to reproach their blindness — rideam vani- 
tatem an exprobrem cxcitatem?^^ I am inclined to think one 
may either laugh or cry as we choose — H^c tolerahilius vei 
ridentur vel Jientur, says St. Augustin. **There is," to 
quote from Scripture, *'a time to laugh and a time to 



150 FROTINCIAL LETTERS. 

mourn*/' and I sincerely wish, Fathers, that I were unable 
to prove in your example, the truth of the following words 
in the book of Proverbs: *<rf a wise man contendeth with a 
foolish man, whether he rage or laugh there is no rest.'* 



PROTINCIAL XETTERS. 151 



LETTER XII. 

Refutation of the Quirks and Turns of the Jesuits on the 
Subjects of Almsgiving and Simony. 



Revekeivd Fathers, Sept. 9, 1656. 

I WAS about to write to you respecting your injurious 
treatment of me in your publications, in which you have 
been so long bestowing upon me the epithets of **impious — 
buffoon — ignoramus, merry-andrew, impostor, calumnia- 
tor, knave, heretic, disguised Calvinist, disciple of Du Mou- 
lin, possessed with a legion of devils.*' 

I wished that the world should understand the reasons 
you had for treating me in this manner^ for I should be sor- 
ry that all this guilt should be laid to my charge; and I 
felt resolved to complain publicly of your calumnies and 
misrepresentations — when behold, I received your answers 
in which I am accused to my face. This has obliged me to 
alter my design, but not entirely to relinquish it; since, in 
the course of my defence, I hope to convict you of more rea^ 
impostures than you have imputed to me of false ones. 

In truth. Fathers, you are more to be suspected than I 
am; for is it at all probable that I, standing alone, feeble and 
destitute of all human support, should oppose so large a bo- 
dy, and that I should expose myself to total ruin, by being 
detected of imposture, with no other assistance than truth 
and sincerity? It is abundantly easy to discover where the 
falsehood lies in questions of this description. I should 
have plenty of accusers, and they would not be refused jus- 
tice. But you. Fathers, are quite differently circumstan- 
ced: you can say whatever you please against me, and I can 
have no appeal. 



153 PT?{>vi\( IAS. i.iyriMCRS. 

From this difference in our respective situations, I ought 
to be extremely cautious, even though I had no other in- 
ducements to be so; but by treating me as a notorious ini- 
poster, you compel me to reply: and yet you must be per- 
fectly aware this cannot be done without exposing anew and 
revealing the foundation of your points of morality; so that 
I question whether your proceeding be quite politic. The 
war is at your doors, and you must be at the expense of it; 
for though you expected, by perplexing the subjects of dis- 
pute with scholastic terms, the replies would necessarily be 
so long, so obscure, and so intricate as to spoil their relish; 
perhaps this will not be altogether the case, for I shall en- 
deavour to introduce as little as possible of that jargon. I 
know not how it is, but the fact seems to be, that your max- 
ims are so excessively diverting, that every body is delight- 
ed. Remember, however, that it is yourselves who pro- 
voke me to this; and we shall see who is the most success- 
ful combatant. 

The first of your impostures relates to the opinion of Vas- 
quez respecting almsgiving. Allow me to be perfectly ex- 
plicit here, in order to remove all obscurity from our dis- 
putes. There are two precepts in the church with regard to 
almsgiving; the one to give out of one's superfluity to the 
ordinary necessities of the poor — the other to give what may 
be necessary according to one's condition of life, in cases of 
extreme necessity." This is what Cajetan says after St. 
Thomas; so that to show the opinion of Vasquez, I must 
state the rule by which he directs us to dispose of what is 
superfluous as well as what is necessary. 

The supply of superfluity, which is the most usual means 
of assisting the poor, is totally abolished by that single 
maxim, c. 4. n. 14. to which I have referred in my letters. 
*'That which people accumulate to exalt their own condi- 
tion or that of their parents, cannot be termed superfluity; 
and therefore you will scarcely ever find superfluity in the 
world, not even amongst princes." You perceive, Fa- 
thers, by this definition, those who are ambitious cannot 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 153 

have any thing superfluous; and thus the charity of the great- 
est part of the world is at once annihilated. But even sup- 
posing this abundance should be possessed, the individual is 
dispensed from the obligation of giving it in cases of ordi- 
nary necessity, according to Vasquez, who opposes those 
who wish to impose charity upon the opulent. These are 
his words, ch. 1. n. 32: *<Corduba teaches us, that when 
we have any thing superfluous, it must be given to those 
who require the common necessities of life, at least some 
portion of it, that some kind of obedience may be rendered 
to the precept — but this doctrine is not quite satisfactory to 
me — sed hoc non placet — for I have shown the contrary 
against Cajetan and Navarre." Thus, Fathers, the obli- 
gation of almsgiving is absolutely nullified, at the good 
pleasure of Vasquez. 

In cases of extreme and urgent necessity, it is our duty 
to do something for the poor; but you will see, by the con- 
ditions with which he connects this obligation, the richest 
person in Paris is perfectly released from contributing any 
thing as long as he lives. To mention only two — 

1. ^'When you know that the poor person will not be as- 
sisted by any other individual — haec intelligo et csetera om- 
nia, quando scio nullum alium opem laturum,'' ch. 1. n. 28. 
What say you to this. Fathers? Is it likely to happen in 
Paris, where there are so many charitable people, that it 
can be certainly known no person will be found to relievo 
the poor petitioners of our bounty? Yet, according to Vas- 
quez, without this knowledge, they may be dismissed with- 
out help. 

2. The other condition is, that the necessity of the poor 

man be such, that **he is in danger of his life or of losing 

his reputation," n. 24 and 26, which is very uncommon; 

and that which evinces its infrequency is his representation 

in n. 45., that a poor man who is in such circumstances that 

he says we must afford him relief, <<may rob the rich with 

a safe conscience." This must be a very extraordinary 

case, unless he will assert that it is usual to permit this 
20 



154 PROVINCIiili LETTERS. 

theft; so that, after destroying the ohligation of almsgiving 
out of our superfluity, which is the greatest source of chari- 
ty, he does not oblige the wealthy to assist the poor out of 
their necessaries, but when he permits the poor to rob the 
rich. Such is the doctrine of Vasquez, whom you are in 
the habit of recommending to your readers for their edifi- 
cation. 

I now proceed to your impostures. And here, in the first 
place, you expatiate upon the obligation which Vasquez im- 
poses on all ecclesiastics to give alms: but I have never yet 
spoken of them, though I am ready to do so whenever you 
please: at present they are out of the question. With regard 
to the laymen, who alone are concerned, you seem to be de- 
sirous of making us believe that Vasquez only gives us the 
opinion of Cajetan in the passage I have quoted, not his own. 
Nothing, however, can be more false; but as you have not 
absolutely asserted this, I am to save your honour, by sup- 
posing you did not intend it. 

You complain, that after quoting the following maxim of 
Vasquez, **it is scarcely possible to find superfluity in the 
world, even amongst kings;" I infer, that "the rich, upon 
this principle, cannot be obliged to give alms out of their 
abundance.'' But what can you mean, Fathers? If it be 
true that the rich seldom have any superfluity, is it not cer- 
tain that they can scarcely ever be under any obligation to 
give alms out of their superfluity ? I would prove this by 
an argument in detail, but that Diana, who thinks so high- 
ly of Vasquez, that he calls him **the phoenix of wits," has 
deduced the same inference from the same principle. Af- 
ter quoting this maxim of Vasquez, he adds: In the ques- 
tion, whether the rich are obliged to give alms out of their 
superfluity, although the opinion which obliges them to it 
be true, it would never or seldom happen that they are 
obliged to it in practice." I quote Diana verbatim* What 
then can be meant, when Diana cites the opinions of Vas- 
quez with great approbation, when he represents them as 
probable and <*very accommodating to the richf" It is not 



PBOVINCIiX LETTERS. 155 

said that he is cither a calumniator or falsifier, and you mako 
no complaints of any misrepresentation; but when I intro- 
duce the very same sentiments from Vasquez, but without 
dignifying him with the name of phxnix, I am an impostor, 
a liar, and a corrupter of his maxims ! 

Certainly, my good Fathers, you have reason to appre- 
hend that the difference of your treatment towards those 
who differ nothing in their statements, but solely in their es- 
timation of your doctrines, will discover the real feeling of 
your hearts, and make it evident that your principal object 
is to uphold the credit and glory of your society; since as 
long as your accommodating theology passes for a wise con- 
descension and compliance, you will not disavow those who 
divulge it, but praise them as your auxiliaries: but so soon 
as it is exhibited in the light of a pernicious relaxation, 
then the same interest of your society requires a disavowal 
of those doctrines which injure your credit with the world. 
Thus you admit or renounce opinions, not according to truth, 
which is immutable, but in conformity to the various chan- 
ges of the times, as an ancient writer says, omnia pro tem^ 
pore, nihil pro veritate. Take care, Fathers,— and, that 
you may no longer accuse me of deducing from Vasquez an 
inference which he had disavowed, know that he has dedu- 
ced it himself, c 1- n. 27: '^Scarcely is any one obliged to 
give alms, if the obligation respect his superfluities only, ac- 
cording to the opinion of Cajetan, and my own ojnnion al- 
so — et secundum nostram.^^ Confess then. Fathers, from 
the testimony of Vasquez himself, that I have exactly stated 
his own idea, and consider with what kind of conscience you 
can venture to assert, that ^4f the original were consulted, 
it would be seen with astonishment that he teaches the very 
reverse." 

In short, this is your grand argument, that if Vasquez 
do not oblige the rich to bestow alms out of their superflui- 
ty, he obliges them however to give out of their necessaries. 
But you have forgot to point out the multitudinous condi- 
tions which he states to be requisite, and which so fetter and 



156 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

restrict the obligation, that it is almost annihilated: and, in- 
stead of explaining his doctrine, you only state in general 
terms, that he obliges the rich to give even that which is 
necessary to their rank. But this, my Fathers, is going 
too far: the rule of the Gospel does not extend to such 
lengths, and Vasquez is far enough from promulgating or 
patronizing this new mistake. In order to cover his indul- 
gence, you attribute to him a reprehensible excess of seve- 
rity, by which means you discredit your own fidelity of quo- 
tation. But he does not merit this reproach; for he has es- 
tablished, as I have shown, that the rich are not obliged, ei- 
ther in justice or charity, to give of their abundance, still 
less out of their necessaries, to relieve the ordinary wants 
of the poor, and they are only required to bestow what is 
necessary on occasions which seldom or never occur. 

You state no further objections; it only remains, therefore, 
to show the falsehood of your representations respecting 
Vasquez as more strict than Cajetan. This is sufficiently 
easy, since the cardinal himself says: "We are required 
in justice to give alms out of our superfluities, even in the 
common necessities of the poor, because, according to the 
holy Fathers, the rich are only stewards to distribute of their 
abundance to the necessitous:" and thus, while Diana says 
of the maxims of Vasquez, that they are very convenient 
and very agreeable to the rich and to their confessors, the 
cardinal, who has no such consolation to minister, declares, 
de Eleem, c 6: <4ie has nothing to address to the rich, but 
the following words of Christ: It is easier for a camel Iq go 
through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter in- 
to the kingdom of heaven; and to their confessors, If the 
blind lead the blind they shall both fall into the ditch'* — so 
indispensable in his view is this obligation ! All the saints 
and Fathers have also established it as an unalterable truth. 
"Therearetwo cases," says St Thomas, q. £. 9. 118. art. 
4. '*in which we are obliged to give alms from a principle 
of justice — ex debito legali; the one, when the poor are; in 
danger; the other, when we enjoy superfluous possessions;" 



PROVINCIAI. LETTERS. 157 

and 9. 87. a. 1 — '*the three-tenths which the Jews \N'«re to 
eat with the poor were augmented in the new law, hecause it 
is the will of Christ that we give to the poor, not only the 
tenth part, hut all our superfluity." 

Vasquez, however does not approve the imposing of an 
obligation to give even a part; such is his complaisance to 
the rich, his cruelty to the poor, and his opposition to those 
sweet and charitable sentiments of St. Gregory, which ap- 
pear so offensive to the opulent: *<\Vhen we bestow upon 
the poor what is necessary to their subsistence, we do not 
so much give them what is our own, as pay them what is 
theirs; and this is rather an act of justice than a work of 
mercy." 

In this manner the ancient saints recommend to the rich 
to divide their temporal possessions with the poor, if they 
wish with them to participate the riches of heaven: and 
while you are endeavouring to inflame the ambition of men, 
which will never admit of the existence of any superfluity, 
and their avarice, which refuses to part with any they may 
possess; the saints are, on the contrary, labouring to induce 
mankind to give their superfluity, and show them that they 
may have enough to distribute, if they would measure their 
means, not by that cupidity which knows no bounds, but by 
that piety which ingeniously devises plans of retrenchment, 
by which persons may have it in their power to exercise 
charity. '*We may have much to spare," says St. Augus- 
tin, **if we keep only what is necessary; but if we seek after 
vanities, nothing will satisfy us. My brethren, pursue on- 
ly what is sufficient for tlie work of God, that is, to sup- 
port nature, and not what will gratify concupiscence, which 
is the work of the devil; and remember that the superfluity 
of the rich is necessary and due to the poor." 

I very much wish. Fathers, that what I have said, may 
not only serve for my justification — this is of trifling impor- 
tance — -but may make you perceive, and lead you to detest 
every corrupt principle in the maxims of your casuists, that 



153 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

we may be all sincerely united in the sacred rules of the 
Gospel, according to which we must be judged. 

With regard to the second point, relative to Simony, pre- 
vious to my giving any reply to your reproaches, I pro- 
pose to explain your own doctrine upon the subject. Being 
extremely embarrassed with the canons of the church on the 
one hand, which impose tremendous punishments on Simon- 
ists; and on the other, the avarice of so many persons who 
follow that infamous traffic, you have had recourse to your 
usual method of allowing men whatever they desire, and 
giving mere words and forms to God. For what do these 
Simonists require for their livings but money? But you 
have exempted this from the charge of Simony. But inas- 
much as the word must be retained, as well as some sub- 
ject to which it must be attached, you have chosen for this 
purpose an imaginary idea which never came into the mind of 
Simonists, and which would be perfectly useless; which is, to 
esteem money considered in itself as equivalent to a spiritual 
good in itself considered; For who ever thought of comparing 
things so disproportionate and so different in nature? And 
yet, without this metaphysical comparison, aperson may give 
his benefice to another, and, according to your writers, re- 
ceive money in exchange without committing Simony. 

In this manner you make a mock of religion to gratify 
the passions of mankind; but see, nevertheless, how gravely 
your Father Valentia utters his dreams in the passage quo- 
ted in my letters, tom. 3. disp. 6. qu. 16. p. 3. p. 2044: **One 
may give," says he, "a temporal for a spiritual good in two 
ways; the one by setting a higher price upon the temporal 
than the spiritual possession, which would be Simony; the 
other, by taking the temporal as the motive and end which in- 
duces the gift of the spiritual, without, however, estimating 
the temporal at a higher rate than the spiritual — then it 
would not be Simony. The reason is this: Simony con- 
sists in receiving the temporal as the full worth of the spiri- 
tual. If therefore, the temporal be demanded, si petatur 
t^wporak — not as the value, but as the motive which indu- 



PBOVINCIAL LETTERi. 159 

ces the bestowment of the spiritual, it is not by any means 
Simony, even though the principal aim and wish be direct- 
ed to the temporal possession — minime erit Simoniaf etiamti 
temporale principaliter intendatur et expectatur,'* 

Has not your great Sanchez had a similar revelation, 
whose words are quoted by Escobar, tr. 6. ex. 2. n. 40: 
<*If temporal possessions be given for spiritual ones, not as 
the pnce, but as the motive to induce the patron to confer it, 
or as a recompense for having done it, is this Simony? 
Sanchez assures us it is not." Your theses at Caen, in 1644, 
state, **It is a probable opinion, taught by many Catholics, 
that it is no Simony to give temporal for spiritual posses- 
sions, when not given as a price.'* 

As for Tannerus, his doctrine is the same with that of 
Valentia, which will prove how much mistaken you are in 
complaining that I have asserted his doctrine does not ac- 
cord with that of St. Thomas, since he acknowledges it him- 
self in the passage quoted in my letter, tom. 3. disp. 5. p. 
1519: '*There is not," says he, ^'properly and truly any 
Simony, but in taking a temporal gift as the price of a spirit- 
ual one; but when it is taken as a motive to induce the gift 
of the spiritual, or as a grateful testimony of the favour, it 
is not Simony, at least not in conscience." A little fur- 
ther, he adds, *^The same may be said, though the individ- 
ual should regard the temporal (or money) as his principal 
end, and though he even prefer it to the spiritual; however 
St. Thomas and others may seem to state the contrary, by 
assuring us that it is absolute Simony to give a spiritual for 
a temporal good, when the temporal is the end in view." 

Such, Fathers, is your doctrine of Simony, as taught by 
your best authors, who in this particular follow each other 
very accurately. It remains for me to advert to your im- 
postures. 

The opinion of Valentia, as you have made no remarks 
upon it, remains as it did; but you dwell upon that of Tan- 
nerus, asserting that he has merely decided it is not Si- 
mony by the divine law, and you wish to circulate the im- 
pression that I took care to suppress the words divim law 



160 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

in the passage. But this is unreasonahle, Fathers, because 
this phrase, was never inserted there at all ! You after- 
wards add, that Tannerus declares it to he Simony by a 
positive law. Good Fathers, you deceive yourselves; for 
he does not speak generally, but only in reference to partic- 
ular cases — in casibus a jure expressis; by which expression 
he furnishes an exception to his general rule, that *4t is not 
Simony in conscience,'' which implies it is not so by any 
positive law, unless you would represent Tannerus im- 
pious enough to maintain that what is Simony by a posi- 
tive law is not Simony in conscience. But these phra- 
ses, divine law, positive law, natural law, an internal and 
external tribunal, cases expressed in law, external presump- 
tion, and others alike unknown, are invented for the pur- 
pose of escaping under this veil, and diverting the mind 
from noticing your extravagances. You shall not, how- 
ever, be sheltered by these vain subtleties, for I am resolv- 
ed to propose to you such plain questions that they shall not 
be liable to a distinguo. 

I ask, then, without talking o^ positive law, or external 
presumption, or exterior tribunal, whether, according to 
your authors, an incumbent would be guilty of Simony by 
disposing of a living of 200^ per annum, for 5001. ready 
money, not as the value of the benefice, but as a motive 
which induced him to part with it? Tell me candidly. Fa- 
thers, what would your authors say to such a transaction? 
Will not Tannerus say at once, *<that it is not Simony in 
conscience, because the money is not the price of the living, 
but only the motive for bestowing it ?" Will not Valentia, 
your Caen theses^ Sanchez, and Escobar, give a similar de- 
cision, and for the same reason ? And does this patron re- 
quire any other authority to apologize for his Simony ? And 
dare you treat him as a Simonist in your confessionals, 
whatever might be your private opinion, when he would 
have it in his power to silence you by appealing to your own 
grave doctors ? You must admit then, that such a patron is 
free from Simony by your own confession; and now defend 
this doctrine if you can. 



mOVINCIAL 1ETTER3. 161 

This, my good Fathers, is the proper method of treating 
questions, without entangling them with scholastic terms, 
or clianging the state of the question, as you have done in 
your last attack. Tannerus, you say, declares that such 
an exchange is a great sin, and you reproach me with hav- 
ing maliciously suppressed that circumstance, which, as you 
affirm, justifies him entirely. But here you are mistaken in 
several respects: for though your statement were true, the 
question was not whether there was any sin in it, but whe- 
ther it amounted to Simony: this is a very different consid- 
eration: sinSj according to your maxims, only require con- 
fession^ Simony obliges to restitution: and there are people 
who are sufficiently acquainted with this difference. You 
have] discovered expedients to render confession easy, but 
none to render restitution agreeable. I must say further, 
that the case which Tannerus accuses of sin, is not merely 
that in which a spiritual is given in exchange for a tempo- 
ral possession, which latter constitutes the principal mo- 
tive; but he adds, 'Hhe temporal being more valued than 
the spiritual;" and this is precisely the imaginary case to 
which I before adverted. In fact, there is no evil in charg- 
ing that with sin, since it must be a piece of prodigious 
wickedness or monstrous stupidity to incur a sin so easily 
avoided, by only comparing the price of these two posses- 
sions at the time when the one is allowed to be given for the 
other. Besides, Valentia, on the same passage, in examin- 
ing whether it be criminal to give a spiritual good for a tem- 
poral, the latter being the principal motive, relates the rea- 
sons of those who decide in the affirmative, adding, sed hoc 
nan videtur mihi satis csrtum: <'this does not appear to me 
quite certain." 

Since that, your father Erade Bill, professor of Cases of 
Conscience at Caen, has decided that there is no sin in 
such a transaction, for probable opinions are always riperi' 
ing. This is stated in his writings of 1644, against which 
M. Dupre, doctor and professor at Caen, made that fine ora- 
tion, afterwards printed and safficiently well known. Fop 
SI 



162 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

though Father Erade Bill admits that the doctrine of Va- 
lentia followed by father Millard and condemned by the 
Sorbonne, *<is contrary to the common opinion, and in many 
things suspected of Simony, and justly punished when the 
facts are discovered^" he still says it is yrohdble, therefore 
safe in point of conscience, and consequently unconnected 
either with Simony or sin. **It is,'* he says, "a probable 
opinion, and taught by the majority of Catholic divines, 
that there is no Simony, and no sirit in giving money or any 
other temporal consideration for a benefice, whether, as an 
acknowledgment, or as a motive without which it could not 
be conferred, provided it be not given as a price equal to 
the benefice." 

Nothing more surely can be required: for, according to 
all these maxims, Simony is so uncommon, that Simon 
Magus himself, who wished to purchase the Holy Ghost, 
could not be convicted of it, in which he is the very model 
of your Simonists who buy it; and Gehazi, who took money 
for a miracle, is the representative of your Simonists who 
sell it. It is indisputable that when Simon, in the Acts, 
offered money to the apostles to confer this power, he did 
not use the words buying, sellings or price; he did nothing 
more than offer some money as a motive to induce the be- 
stowment of that spiritual gift; which, according to your 
writers, being no Simony, he would have been perfectly for- 
tified against the anathema of St. Peter, had he been lucky 
enough to have known your modern doctrines. 

This ignorance also was very unfortunate for Gehazi, 
when he was smitten with the leprosy by the word of Elisha; 
for only taking money of the prince who was miraculously 
cured as an acknowledgment, and not as an equivalent for 
that divine virtue which had operated the miracle, he might 
have obliged Elisha to cure him again under pain of a mor- 
tal sin. In such ajcase he would only have acted in confor- 
mity to your grave doctors, who require all confessors to 
absolve their penitents in such circumstances, and to cleanse 
them from their spiritual leprosy, of which the corporeal is 
but a figure. 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 16S 

Seriously, my Fathers, nothing would be easier than to 
turn you and your doctrines here into ridicule. How could 
you so expose yourselves? I should have nothing more to do 
than to state your own maxims; as for instance, that of Es- 
cobar in his <*Practice of Simony according to the Society 
of Jesus,'' n. 40: **Is it a simoniacal transaction when two 
monks enter into an engagement with each other in this 
manner, 'Give me your vote to procure my election to a 
provincial, and I will give you mine to make you prior?' — 
By no means." Again, tr. 6. n. 14: <*It is no Simony to 
procure a benefice, by promising money which you really 
never intended to pay. because it is only a mock Simony, 
which is no more real than a counterfeit guinea is a genu- 
ine one." 

It is by such subtleties practised upon conscience, that he 
has discovered a method, by adding knavery to Simony, o£ 
procuring benefices without either money or Simony. But I 
have not time to proceed here, and must hasten to defend my- 
self against your third calumny on the subject of bankrupts. 
Can any thing be more gross? You treat me as an impos- 
tor on account of a sentiment of Lessius, which I have not 
quoted from him, but which was alleged by Escobar in a 
passage which I have introduced; hence, though it were 
true that Lessius did not maintain the sentiments attribu- 
ted to him by Escobar, can any thing be more unjust than 
to censure me for it? When I quote Lessius or your other 
authors myself, I agree to be alone responsible . But as 
Escobar has collected the opinions of twenty-four of your 
Fathers, I ask whether I am to be answerable for any thing 
but what I quote from him; or whether, in addition to this 
I must be responsible for the citations which he has given 
in the passages whence I have derived them? This would 
be most unreasonable; but this is precisely the case in the 
present instance. 

I introduced into my letter the following passage of Es- 
cobar, faithfully translated, upon which, by the way, you 
have made no remark: — <*Can a bankrupt, with a safe pon- 



164 PKOVINCIAL LETTERS. 

science, retain as much as may be necessary to his living 
handsomely — ne indecore vivat? I answer with Lessius, in 
the affirmative — cum Lessio assero possBj &:c." Upon which 
you tell me Lessius is not of that opinion. But consider a lit- 
tle what you are asserting: for if it be true that he is of that 
opinion, you will incur the name of impostors for affirming 
the contrary; and if he be not, Escobar will be deemed an 
impostor: so that some of your society must necessarily fall 
under this imputation. But what a scandal! And how 
strange that you should not foresee the consequences of 
things! You seem to imagine that you are at liberty to 
circulate injurious representations without once reflecting 
upon whom they may fall. 

Why did you not explain your difficulty to Escobar pre- 
vious to its publication? He could have satisfied you. It i» 
easy to communicate with Valladolid, where he is at pres- 
ent in perfect health completing his body of Moral Theolo- 
gy, in six volumes, on the first of which I propose someday 
to offer a few observations. You sent him my first ten let- 
ters; you might have also sent your objection, and I feel 
assured he could have furnished you with a reply, for he 
h4s no doubt seen in Lessius the passage from which betook 
his JSTe indecore vivat: only look attentively, my good Fa- 
thers, and you will find it there as I did, lib. 2. c. 16. n. 45: 
Mem colligitur aperte ex juribus citatis, maxime quoad ea 
bona quae post cessionem acquirit, de quibus is qui debitor est 
etiam ex delicto potest retinere quantum necessarium est, ut 
pro sua conditione non indecore vivat. Petes Sri leges id 
permittant de bonis qux tempore instantis. cessionis habebat? 
Ita videtur colligi ex 1)1), 

I will not stop to show you that, in order to authorize 
this maxim, Lessius abuses the law which allows a bank- 
rupt mere subsistence, and not a genteel support. It is suf- 
ficient to have vindicated Escobar from such an accusation, 
which is, in fact, doing more than I ought. But you, my 
good Fathers, do not do so much as you ought; for the ques- 
tion is to reply to the passage in Escobar, whose decisions 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 165 

are very accommodating being, independent of what precedc^i 
or follows, and included in brief articles, are not subject to 
your distinctions. 

I have quoted the entire passage which permits bankrupts 
'*to retain their goods, even though unjustly acquired, for 
the maintenance of their families in a handsome way;" upon 
which I exclaim in my letters — <»How, Fathers! by what 
monstrous charity do you concede that goods acquired in an 
iniquitous manner, belong rather to those who have got 
them, than to their lawful creditors?'^ To this question it 
became you to furnish a reply; but it has proved so terribly 
embarrassing, that you endeavour, though in vain, to elude 
it, by flying from the question, and introducing other pas- 
sages from Lessius which have no kind of revelancy to the 
subject. 

I demand, then, whether this maxim of Escobar can be 
followed with a safe conscience by persons in a state of in- 
solvency? Be careful what you say: if you answer tio — 
what will become of your doctor, and what of your doctrine 
of probability ? If you say yes, I refer you to the parliament. 

I must leave you. Fathers, in this dilemma; for I have 
not room to undertake the next subject respecting murder, 
but will avail myself of the very first opportunity to take 
this and the rest in order. 

I propose to say nothing at present of the advertisements 
with which you finish every imposture, and which are so re- 
plete with infamous falsehoods: to all this I shall reply in 
another letter, in which I hope to point out the source of all 
your calumnies. Really, Fathers, I pity you for having 
recourse to such methods: your abusive language will ne- 
ver elucidate our differences, and your menaces shall not 
prevent my defending myself. You think that you have 
power and impunity — I think that I have truth and inno- 
cence. It is a strange and protracted war when violence 
attempts to suppress truth. All the efforts of violence will 
prove unavailable to weaken it — truth will be the more ad- 
vanced: her light can never be extinguished by violence; 



166 PROVINCIAL LETTERS, 

it will burn the brighter. When force contends with force, 
the strongest destroys the weakest — when reasons oppose 
reasons, those which are true and convincing confound and 
dissipate those which are false and vain: but violence and 
truth can do nothing with each other. Let it not be assert- 
ed, however, they are upon an equality, for this mighty 
diiference exists: violence has a course limited by the com- 
mands of God, who renders its efforts subservient to pro- 
mote the glory of the truth it attacks; but truth subsists fop 
ever, and eventually triumphs over all her enemies, because 
she is eternal and powerful as God himself. 



PROVINCIAI. lETTERS. 167 



REFUTATION 

Of the Reply of the Jesuits to the last Letter. 

Sir, 
Whoever may be the persons that have undertaken to 
defend the Jesuits against the letters which have so clearly 
detected the irregularity of their morals, it appears by the 
pains you take to afford them some assistance, that you well 
know the weakness of their principles; and in this respect 
your judgment is correct: but if you really thought your- 
self capable of justifying them effectually, you are inexcus- 
able. 

No, no — I entertain a better opinion of you, and per- 
suade myself that your design was merely to divert the au- 
thor of the letters from keeping up this amusing game. But 
you are not successful; and I am extremely gratified to find 
that the thirteenth letter, which has just made its appear- 
ance, passes unnoticed your remarks upon the eleventh and 
twelfth, and does not seem to think about you at all. This 
leads me to hope that the author will equally neglect your 
other publications. 

You are not to suppose, however, that he would not have 
found it perfectly easy to have given you a deadly thrust. 
Could he, who has so vanquished your whole society, have 
found any difficulty in conquering an individual? You may 
judge of this by the manner in which I am now going to re- 
ply to what you have written against his twelfth letter. 

I shall pass over all your abuse. The author of the 
letters has promised to afford you ample satisfaction upon 
that subject; and he will do it, I venture to pronounce, in 
such a way as to cover you with shame and sorrow. He 



163 PROVlJfCIAI. LETTERS. 

will find no difficulty in confounding such simple individuals 
as you and your Jesuits, who, by a criminal conspiracy, 
usurp the authority of the church to treat whoever you 
please as heretics, when you see yourselves incapable of 
constructing a defence against the merited reproaches in- 
curred by their impious doctrines. For my own part, I 
shall confine myself to the refutation of those new impos- 
tures which you employ in justification of these casuists. 
To begin with the great Vasquez. 

You have not given the least reply to any thing which 
the author of the letters has written respecting his errone- 
ous statements on the subject of Almsgiving; and only pre- 
fer against him a charge at random of four misrepresenta- 
tions, of which the first is, that in a quotation from Vas- 
quez in the sixth letter, he has suppressed the following 
words, ^'Statum quern licite possunt acquirere;** and disre- 
garded the accusation it had occasioned. 

I plainly perceive, Sir, that you have implicitly believed 
upon the word of your good friends, the Jesuits, that these 
words are really to be found in the passage to which the 
author of the letters refers. Had you known they were not 
there, you would of course have censured these Fathers for 
their false accusation, rather than have been surprised at his 
not deigning to answer this objection. But do not place too 
much reliance upon them, or you will be often entrapped. 
Examine the passage in Vasquez for yourselves, in the trea- 
tise on Almsgiving, c. 4. n. 14; but you will find nothing 
of the phrase which is said to have been suppressed, and 
you will be very much astonished to find them in no other 
situation than at the distance of fifteen pages back. I have 
no doubt but that, after this discovery, you will complain 
of these good Fathers, and will no longer deem it proper 
to reproach this author with having suppressed the passage 
in question, otherwise he must have quoted fifteen previ- 
ous folio pages in a letter of only eight pages quarto, in 
which he is accustomed to introduce twenty or thirty cita- 
tions, which surely would be an unreasonable expectation. 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 1C9 

These words, therefore, can only serve to convict your- 
selves of a fabrication witliout justifying Vasquez. That 
Jesuit is accused of nullifying the precept of Christ, which 
obliges the rich to give alms out of their abundance, by main- 
taining that *'what the wealthy reserve in order to assist their 
relations or aggrandize themselves is not superfluous; and 
that scarcely any such thing can be found amongst men, not 
even amongst kings." The inference that * 'there is scarce- 
ly such a thing as superfluity in tlie world," annuls the obli- 
gation of alms-giving, since the conclusion being that if they 
have nothing superfluous, they are under no obligation to dis- 
pense charity. If the author of the letters had deduced this 
inference, you would have had some pretence for intimating 
it was not contained in this principle, ''that what the rich 
lay up in order to advance their own condition or that of their 
relations is not to be called superfluity." But he found this 
consequence already'stated in Vasquez, where he read these 
words, so remote from the true spirit of the Gospel and the 
moderation of a Christian: "One can scarcely find any su- 
perfluity amongst mankind, not even amongst kings." There 
also he read this last conclusion, supported in the twelfth let- 
ter: "One is scarcely ever obliged to give alms, if the only 
obligation be to do it out of one's superfluity: "and it is re- 
markable that this is stated in the very same place with these 
words, by which you pretend to elude the consequence — ■ 
Statum quern licite possunt acquirere. You cavil therefore 
about this principle very uselessly, wiien you are necessita- 
ted to be silent respecting the inferences formerly deduced 
in Vasquez, and which are suflicient to nullify the precept of 
Jesus Christ, of which he is accused. 

If Vasquez had drawn erroneous consequences from his 
principle, he would have superadded an error of judgment 
to an error in morals^ but this would not have made him 
more innocent, nor the precept of Jesus Christ the less anni- 
hilated. But it will appear by the refutation of the second 
falsity, which you have charged upon the author of the let- 
ters, that these pernicious consequences are properly dedu- 



170 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

ced from the erroneous principle which Vasquez establishes 
in the same place; and that this Jesuit has not sinned against 
the rules of logic, but against those of the Gospel. 

This second falsity, which you attribute to him in defiance 
of his own convictions, is, that he has omitted the words in 
question from a malicious design to pervert the sentiment 
of this Father, and to draw from it this scandalous conclu- 
sion: *<An ambitious man can have no superfluity." I 
have only to say to this, in one word, that there never was 
a more unreasonable accusation.- The Jesuits themselves 
never complained of this consequence; and yet you reproach 
the author of the letters for not having replied to an objec- 
tion which has never been made to him. But if you suppose 
that in this particular you have been more sharp-sighted than 
all the rest of your fraternity, it will be easy to cure you of 
a vanity so injurious to this great body. How can you de- 
ny that the inevitable conclusion from this principle of Vas- 
quez, <*that what is treasured up to aggrandize a man's con- 
dition and that of his relations, is not called superfluity,'* 
is, that an ambitious man can have no superfluity? I readily 
allow you to add the condition he specifies in another passage 
to improve a possession by lawful means — statum quern liciie 
possunt acquirere — but this will not prevent the correctness 
of the inference, which you deny. 

It is true. Sir, some rich persons may enhance their for- 
tune by lawful means; the general good may sometimes jus- 
tify such a desire, provided they do not so much regard their 
own honor and interest as the honor of God and the interest 
of the public; but it does not often happen that the Spirit of 
Christ, without which no purity of intention can exist; in- 
spires the rich of the world with desires of this nature. He 
rather admonishes them to lay aside the useless weight which 
prevents their ascent to heaven, and to tremble at the words 
of his Gospel, ''He that exalteth himself shall be abased." 

Thus the eagerness discernible in the greatest proportion 
of mankind, to rise to a more elevated condition, and to ad- 
vance the interests of their relatives, though by lawful meas- 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. ITl 

\ires, is commonly nothing more than the effect of covetous- 
iicss and ambition. It is, Sir, a gross error, to imagine 
there is no ambition in desiring to increase one's fortune 
only when illegal methods are pursued^ and it is this which 
St. Augustine condemns in his book on Patience, c. 3: <*The 
love of money," says he, **and the passion for glory, are fol- 
lies which the world thinks allowable, believing that avarice, 
ambition, luxury, amusements, are innocent, so long as we 
do not fall into any crime or disorder forbidden by the laws." 
Ambition consists in seeking distinction, for the mere sake 
of distinction, honor for the sake of honor; as avarice is 
the love of riches for the sake of riches. If with tliese 
you connect unjust means, you render them the more crimi- 
nal; but you cannot, by substituting legitimate methods, 
render them innocent. But Vasquez says nothing of 
those occasions in which certain good people desire an 
alteration in their condition, and, as cardinal Cajetan 
expresses it, are in the probable expectation of accomplish- 
ing it: if he had, he would have been ridiculed for con- 
cluding that superfluity is scarcely ever to be found, be- 
cause such occasions are exceedingly rare, happening but 
once or twice in a whole life, and then only to a very small 
proportion of the opulent, to wkom God reveals that they 
shall not injure themselves by rising higher to serve others, 
and cannot hinder most ricli persons from possessing a su- 
perfluity. But he speaks of a vague and indeterminate de- 
sire of aggrandizement, of a desire whicli has no limits; for 
if it were bounded, the rich would begin to possess super- 
fluity as soon as they attained them. In short, he believes 
that this desire is so generally allowed of, that it almost en- 
tirely prevents the rich from possessing any superfluities. 
You may understand. Sir, by the preceding statement, 
the pretence for accumulation and pressing forward to a 
more elevated condition, though by legitimate methods — 
ad statum quern licite possunt acquirere — which the author 
of the letters denominates ambition, because this is the name 
hy which the Fathers, and indeed every one else, distinguish- 



172 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

es it. "He was not obliged to imitate one of the most ordi- 
nary peices of finesse practised by those wretched casuists, 
who banish the names of vices, but retain, under different 
appellations, the vices themselves. If then the words statum 
quern licite possunt acquirere had really been in the passage 
he has quoted, there was no need to omit them in order to 
render the passage objectionable. It is by adding them, he 
has a right to accuse Vasquez of maintaining, that if you 
possess ambition you cannot have a superfluity. He is not 
the first who has deduced the same inference from this doc- 
trine. Mr. Du Val had done so before in express terms, 
when combatting this pernicious maxim, tom.2. qu. 8. p. 
576: **It will follow," says he, **that whoever desires a 
higher dignity, that is to say, who has greater ambition^ 
would not have a superfluity, though he should possess much 
more than was necessary to his present condition — Sequerc- 
tur eum qui hanc dignitatem cwperet; seu qui majori ambI" 
TioNE DUCERBTUR, hobeudo pluHma supra decentiam sui 
status, noil habiturum superflua,'* 

You have not succeeded very well, then in the first two 
falsities which you have charged upon the author of the let- 
ters. Let us see if you are better grounded in the two oth- 
ers, of which you have accused him in his defence. The 
first is, that he asserts Vasquez docs not require the rich to 
give out of what is necessary to their own rank. The an- 
swer to this is easy, for I have only to say at once, it isfalscj 
and he says quite the contrary. A sufficient proof of this is, 
that very passage which you produce three lines after, 
where he states that Vasquez ^'requires the rich to give out 
of their own necessities on certain occasions," 

Your last complaint is equally unreasonable. The author 
of the letters has objected to two decisions in Vasquez: the 
one is, *'that the rich are not obliged, either in justice or 
charity, to part with their superfluities, still less their ne- 
cessaries, to supply the common wants of the poor;" — the 
other, ^'that they are not obliged to part with what is neces- 
saryj but on such occasions as seldom or never occur." 



PROVINCIAL i.i:ttkiis. 173 

Having no reply to the first of these decisions, which is the 
most infamous, wliat did you do? Why, join them together, 
and imputing some great error to the last, you would make 
people believe that you had fully replied to both. In order, 
therefore, to unravel what you purposely perplex, I ask you 
pointedly, w hether it is not true that Vasqucz teaches thatthc 
rich are never under any obligation to give, either out of 
their superfluities or out of tlieir necessities, in justice or in 
charity, to the ordinary wants of the poor? Has not the au- 
thor of the letters proved this by tJie follownig quotation 
fromVasquez? *'Corduba teaches, that if a person possess 
a superabundance, he is obliged to give to those who are in 
circumstances of ordinary necessity, a portion at least, in 
some measure, to fulfil the precept." — (Here remark, that 
he is notinquiring whether he is obliged in justice or charity, 
but whether he is absolutely obliged at all.) — Let us see the 
decision of your Vasquez — **But this does not quite please 
me — sed hoc mm placet; for we have shown tlie contrary 
against Cajetan and Navarre." To this you furnish no 
answer, but leave the Jesuits convicted of an error so oppo- 
site to tlie Gospel. 

As to the second decision of Vasquez, which is, that the 
rich are not obliged to give out of what is requisite to main- 
tain their own rank, but on occasions so rare that they 
scarcely ever occur; the author of the letters has demonstra- 
ted it with equal clearness, by collecting the conditions 
w liicli tins Jesuit requires to constitute the obligation; name- 
ly, **to be assured that the poor person in this urgent neces- 
sity, will receive assistance from no one but ourselves; and 
that this necessity threatens him eitlier with the destruction 
of life or the loss of reputs-tion." He then demands, whetlier 
such cases were of very frequent occurrence in Paris; and 
lastly, presses the Jesuits by this argument — whilst Vas- 
quez allows the poor to rob the rich in the same circumstan- 
ces in which he oblige* the rich to relieve the poor, he must 
either suppose that such occasions are very unusual, or that 
stealing was commonly permitted. What said you, Sii*, to 



174 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

this? You disregarded all these proofs, and contented your- 
selves with citing three passages from Vasquez, who says in 
the first two, that the rich are obliged to help the poor in 
cases of urgent necessity, which is expressly acknowledged 
by the author of the letters: but then you take especial 
care not to state the restrictions he mentions, which so order 
these urgent necessities, that they seldom oblige to the duty 
of almsgiving; which is, in fact, the point in dispute. 

The third passage simply states, that the rich are not 
under obligation to give alms except in extreme necessities, 
as when a man is at the point of death, because they are too 
rare; whence you conclude, that it is false to say the cases 
in which Vasquez obliges to give alms are very rare. But 
you are joking, surely; for no other conclusion can be drawn, 
but that Vasquez does not admit the occasions of distribu- 
ting to the poor are very rare; but he, in reality, makes 
them so by the conditions which he imposes. In this he 
lias only followed the example of his society. This Jesuit 
had at once to satisfy the rich, who are not very desirous of 
too frequent almsgiving, and the church; which enjoins 
them to do it often out of their superfluity. He was desi- 
rous, therefore according to the usual methods of the soci- 
ety, to satisfy every body, and he has succeeded exceeding- 
ly well; for he requires on one side conditions of such unfre- 
quent occurrence, that the most avaricious ought to be sat- 
isfied; and, on the other, takes away the term rare to please 
the church in appearance. The question is not then, whether 
Vasquez calls those opportunities by the name of rare, in 
which we are obliged to almsgiving. He has never been 
accused of calling them rare. Oh no, he was too skilful 
a Jesuit to call bad things by their proper names. The 
question is, to know whether they are not rare by the re- 
straints he has laid upon them; and this has been so plainly 
shown by the author of the letters, that he has left you no 
other but this general answer, which never fails you — dis- 
simulation and silence. 

All you have added respecting the subtlety of Vasquez, 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 175 

in giving such a variety of senses to the words necessity and 
superfluity, is mere iUusion. He never takes them hut in the 
two significations, in wliicli all divines concur. There are, 
according to him, *<things necessary to nature and necessa- 
ry to station; superfluous to nature and superfluous to sta- 
tion." To constitute superfluity of the latter kind, he states 
that it must not only be so in reference to your present sta- 
tion or rank, hut also with regard to the wealth which may 
hereafter be acquired either by the individuals themselves, 
or their relatives, by lawful methods. Hence, according to 
Vasquez, whatever may be stored up to enhance a man's 
condition in the world, is simply to be called necessary to 
his condition, and superfluous only to nature: moreover, he 
is not obliged to bestow alms out of it, excepting on those 
occasions which the author of the letters has shown to be so 
rare, as seldom or never to occur. 

It is unnecessary to add any thing to what the author of 
the letters has said concerning the comparison between Vas- 
quez and Cajetan. I will merely remark in passing, that 
you are equally unjust to them both, when you maintain 
that, <*contrary to what he (the Cardinal) had said in his 
treatise on Almsgiving, he teaches us in his book on Indul- 
gences, **that to violate the obligation to give what is su- 
purfluous, is a venial sin." Now, Sir, read him yourself, 
and no longer place such implicit confidence in the Jesuits, 
living or dead. You will find that the Cardinal solemnly 
avows the very opposite doctrine; and, after saying tliat 
nothing but extreme necessities, under which designation he 
includes most of those which Vasquez denominates urgent, 
constitute it a mortal sin, he subjoins an exception in refer- 
ence to the possession of superfluities — seclusd superjlultate 
bonorum, 

I hasten then to accompany you to the doctrine of si- 
mony. The author of the letters had nothing in view, but 
to show that the society of Jesuits hold the following maxim; 
*nhat it is not simony in conscience, to give a spiritual in 
exchange for a temporal possession, provided the temporal 



176 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

be only the chief motive and not the price;" and, to prove 
it, he quotes at length, in his twelfth letter, the passage from 
Valentia, which so clearly avows it, that you have no re- 
ply to offer; no more than to Escobar, Erade Bill, and 
others who maintain the same doctrine. It is quite suffi- 
cient that all these authors concur in this opinion, to show, 
that according to the whole society, who assert the doctrine 
of probability, it is safe in conscience, after so many grave 
authors have maintained it, and so many grave provincials 
have approved it. Acknowledge, then, while leaving this 
sentiment to remain in full force, as you do, a sentiment in 
which all the other Jesuits concur, and adhering to Tan- 
nerus alone, you really achieve nothing against the design 
of the author of the letters whom you attack, or in favour 
of the society which you defend. 

But, in order to afford you complpete satisfaction upon 
this subject, I aver that you have distorted the language 
even' of Tannerus, quite as much as that of others. First, 
you cannot deny, that he says in general, **it is no simony 
in conscience — inforo conscientise, to give a spiritual pos- 
session for a temporal one, when the temporal is nothing 
more than the principal motive and not the pince.^' And 
when he states it is no simony in conscience, the meaning 
is, that it is not so either by a divine or positive law; for 
what is simony by positive law is simony in conscience. This 
is the general rule, to which Tannerus produces one excep- 
tion; namely, 'Hhat in cases expressed in the law, it is a si- 
mony by positive law, or a presumptive simony." But, since 
an exception cannot be so extensive as the rule, it necessarily 
follows that the general maxim, ^4tis no simony in conscience 
to give a spiritual in exchange for a temporal possession, 
which is only the motive and not the price," must apply to 
some species of spiritual things, consequently some kind 
of spirituals may, without simony, be given by positive law 
for temporals, by changing the word price into motive. 

The author of the letters has chosen the sort of livings 
to which he applies the doctrine of Valentia and Tannerus: 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 177 

nevertheless, he allows you to substitute any other, and to 
say, that it is not livings, but sacraments or ecclesiastical 
preferments that may be given for money. All this he be- 
lieves to be equally impious, and leaves you to the choice. 
This, it seems, you have done, wishing it to be understood, 
that it is no simony to say mass, when the principal motive 
for it is merely to obtain money. This follows, from your 
account of the custom of the church at Paris. For, if you 
had merely stated that Christians may offer temporal things 
to those from whom they receive spiritual, and that priests, 
who serve at the altar, should live by the altar, you would 
have said only what nobody disputes, but which has no rele- 
vancy to the question. 

The point is, whether a priest, whose principal motive in 
presenting the sacrifice respects the money he receives, is 
or is not guilty of simony in the sight of God. You may 
exculpate him by the doctrine of Tannerus, but can you do 
it upon the principles of Christian piety? "'If simony," says 
Peter le Chantre, one ofthe greatest ornaments of the church 
of Paris, **be so shameful and so damnable in things connect-* 
cd with the sacraments, what must it be in the very sacra- 
ments themselves, especially in the Eucharist, in which the 
whole body of Christ, the fountain and origin of all graces, 
is taken? Simon the sorcerer," he adds, *Hvhen rejected by 
Peter, might have alleged, <Thou rebukest me, but I will 
triumph over thee and the whole body ofthe church — I will 
establish the seat of my empire on the altars themselves; 
and when the angels assemble at one corner of the altar to 
worship the body of Je^us Christ, I will be present at the 
other, to cause the minister of that altar, or rather my own, 
to form the body for money.' " And yet this simony, so 
strongly condemned by this pious divine, docs not consist 
in any thing but cupiditij, which, in the administration of 
spiritual things, principally regards the temporal gain which 
accruesj which induces him to say, in general, c. 25, that 
*'when the holy offices," which he calls works of the right 
hand, '*are exercised for the love of money, they produce 
23 



178 PROVIlSrClAL LETTERS. 

simony: oims dexter se operatum causa pecunise acquirendse. 
par it simofiianu" 

What would he have said then, if he had heard of this hor- 
rible maxim of the casuists which you defend, *^that it is 
allowable for a priest to renounce all the spiritual advan- 
tage which may result from the holy sacrament for the sake 
of a little money ?" 

You perceive then, Sir, if this be all you have to say in 
defence of Tannerus, you only make him guilty of a great- 
er impiety: but you will never be able, from his statements, 
to prove that it is simony by a positive law to take money 
as a motive for the gift of a benefice. For, please to ob- 
serve, that he does not simply say that it is simony to be- 
stow a spiritual possession in consideration of a temporal 
gift, as a motive, and not as the price or value; but he sub- 
joins this alternative, that it ^^either is simony by a posi- 
tive law, or a presumptive simony." A presumptive si- 
mony is no simony in the sight of God, and deserves no 
condemnation before the tribunal of conscience. To say, 
with Tannerus, that it is simony by positive law or pre- 
sumptive simony, is, in fact, to say only it is simony or it 
is not. 

Such is the amount of Tannerus's exception, which the 
author of the letters need not have mentioned in his sixth 
letter, because, without citing any of this Jesuit's expres- 
sions, he merely says that he is of the same opinion with 
Valentia; but he introduces and expressly answers it in 
his twelfth, though you falsely accuse him of passing over 
it. 

It was to avoid the perplexity of these distinctions, that 
the author of the letters proposed this question to the Je- 
suits, '* whether, according to their authors, it was simony 
in conscience to give a living of 200L per annum, and take 
500^ as a motive and not as a price?'' He has urged them 
to give a direct reply, without speaking about positive law; 
that is, without making use of those terms which are unin- 
telligible to mankind in general, but not without regarding 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 179 

it, as you Fiave misrepresented him, contrary to all gram- 
matical construction. Kindly, liowever, to afford us satis- 
faction, you liave given us this brief conclusion, <<that ta- 
king away the positive law, there would be no simony, as 
there would be no sin in not hearing mass on a holyday if 
the church had not commanded it;" that is to say, it is a si- 
mony, because the church has constituted it such, but that 
without her positive decisions it w ould be indifferent. Up- 
on wliich I must observe, — 

1. Yours is no reply to the question. The author of the 
letters demanded, if it were simony, according to the Jesuiti- 
cal authors he has cited; and you tell us, ex cathedra, it is 
only a simony of positive law. But the object is not to 
know your opinion, wliicli is of no weight. You pretend, 
perhaps, to.be sl grave doctor? This is rather questiona- 
ble; but what say Valentia, Tannerus, Sanchez, Escobar, 
Erade Bill, who are indisputably grave? Your answer 
must be coincident with their sentiments. The author of 
the letters states, that, according to these Jesuits, there is 
no simony in conscience in these instances. As to Valen- 
tia, Sanchez, Escobar, and others, you abandon them; ad- 
hering, indeed, a little to Tannerus, but, as you see, with- 
out any substantial reason; so that, after all, the society 
teaches that a spiritual may be given for a temporal consid- 
eration, w ithout simony in conscience, provided that the 
temporal be only the principal motive and not the price — 
This was all that was demanded. 

2. I maintain that your reply contains a shocking impie- 
ty. What, Sir! dare you affirm that, independently of tlie 
laws of the church, it would be no simony to give money 
with such a perverted intention to obtain ecclesiastical pre- 
ferments? — that previous to the existence of the cannons 
upon this subject, it was lawful to purchase tlicm, provided 
the money were not given as to value; and thus St. Peter 
was to be deemed rasli for so authoritatively condemning 
Simon Magus, since it does not appear (hat he offered the 
money more as a price than as a motive? 



180 PllOVINCIAIi LETTERS. 

Pray, Sir, to what scJiool would you send us to learn this 
doctrine? Not surely to that of Jesus Christ, who always 
commanded his disciples to give freely what they had freely 
received; by which he excludes, as Peter le Chantre says, iii 
verb. Mb, c. 36, *^all expectation of presents or services, 
whether by agreement or otherwise, because God sees the 
heart." Nor is it the school of the church, who treats those 
who employ money to obtain ecclesiastical offices, not only 
as criminals but heretics, denominating this kind of traffic, 
extenuate it as you will, not a violation of her positive 
laws only, but a heresy — simoniacam hseresim. 

The school then in which these maxims are learned, that 
it is only a simony of positive law, or only a presumptive 
simony, or no simony or sin at all, to give money for a liv- 
ing as a motive and not as a price, can be no other than that 
of Gehazi and of Simon Magus the sorcerer. This is tho 
school in which these two first dealers in sacred things are 
to be deemed innocent, who are every where else regarded 
as most execrable; and where, leaving cupidity to its own 
desires and determination, is taught to evade the law of 
God, by changing a term which cannot alter the thing 
itself. But let the disciples of this school hear in what 
manner that great Pope Innocent III. in his letter to the 
archbishop of Canterbury, in the year 1199, has thundered 
against the damnable subtleties of those, **who, being blind- 
ed by the desire of gain, attempt to palliate simony under 
an honourable name — simoniam sub honesto nomine palliant: 
as if a change of name could change the nature of a crime 
and the punishment it merits. But," he adds, ''God is not 
to be mocked; and if these followers of Simon Magus should 
escape the punishment they deserve in the present life, they 
cannot possibly avoid, in the other world, the everlasting 
misery which is in reserve for them. The speciousness of 
a name is incapable of extenuating the malignity of the sin; 
it is a disguise which will not hinder a thing being account- 
ed wicked— 6'?i?/i nee honestas 7iominis criminis malitiam 
palliabitf nee vox potcrit abolere reatum.^^ 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 181 

The last subject of observation is bankruptcy; upon which 
I admire your assurance. The Jesuits, whose cause you 
advocate, have very improperly thrown the question of Es- 
cobar upon Lessius; for the author of the letters only quot- 
ed Lessius upon the authority of Escobar, charging the lat- 
ter only with this doctrine, which has occasioned so much 
complaint; namely, that the bankrupt may retain a suffi- 
ciency for a genteel living, though these goods were obtain- 
ed by injustice and crimes universally notorious! It is, be- 
sides, solely on account of Escobar that he urges them ei- 
ther publicly to disavow this doctrine, or as publicly ac- 
knowledge it; in which case he appeals to parliaments- 
Some answer is here required, and not merely the statement 
that Lessius, who is out of the question, is not of the same 
opinion with Escobar, who alone is concerned. Do you 
really think of answering questions by only changing them? 
Pray desist from such strange attempts. 

You shall reply to Escobar before you come to Lessius. 
Not that I refuse to enter -the lists, for I promise to give 
you a faithful and full explanation of the notions of Lessius 
respecting bankruptcy, which I feel persuaded will shock 
the parliament as much as the Sorbonne. To this then, by 
the help of God, I pledge my word; but you shall previous- 
ly answer the contested point relating to Escobar. You 
must give a precise and satisfactory account upon this sub- 
ject, before any new questions are investigated. Escobar 
is first in turn, and in spite of your evasions shall have the 
first attention. Be assured Lessius shall follow immedi- 
ately. 

N. B. Though this letter was the production of another 
and inferior writer, it seemed, upon the whole, too interest- 
insr to be omitted. 



182 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 



LETTER XIII. 



The docfHne of Lessius respecting Murder the same with 
that of Victoria' The Ease with which we pass from 
Speculation to Practice, Reason why the Jesuits make 
Use of this vain DistinctioUf and how unavailing it is to 
their Justification. 



Reverend Fathers, Sept SO, 1656. 

I HAVE seen your last performance, in which you proceed 
with your impositions as far as the twentieth, declaring that 
this is the concluding part of that kind of accusation of 
which your first consists, from which you pass to the se- 
cond, where you adopt a new method of defence, by show- 
ing that many other casuists, besides yours, are as relaxed 
in discipline as yourselves. I perceive, now, my good Fa- 
thers, to what a multitude of misrepresentations I have to 
reply; and since the fourth, where we stopped, is upon the 
subject of Homicide, it will be proper in answering it, at 
the same time to investigate the eleventh, thirteenth, four- 
teenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth, 
which are all upon the same subject. 

In the present letter, I shall prove the truth of my cita- 
tions^ in contradiction to the falsities with which you have 
charged me. But since you have ventured to assert, ^Hhat 
the sentiments of your authors on murder are conformable 
to the decisions of the Popes and to the ecclesiastical laws;'' 
you oblige me in the following letter, to overturn a propo- 
sition so extremely rash, and so prejudicial to the church. 
It is of importance to show that she is free from your cor- 
ruptions, that the heretics may not be able to avail them- 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 183 

selves of your errors, and deduce consequences of a nature 
dishonourable to her character. On the one hand, there- 
fore, by surveying your pernicious doctrines, and on the 
other, the canons of the church, which have always con- 
demned them, we shall at once discover what ought to be 
avoided and what followed. 

Your fourth misstatement relates to a maxim concerning 
murder, which you represent me as having falsely attributed 
to Lessius. It is this: **He who has received a box on the 
ear may instantly pursue his enemy, and even strike him 
with a sword, not out of revenge, but to make reparation to 
his insulted honour." This, you assert, is the opinion of 
the casuist Victoria. But this is not the subject of dispute; 
for it is not inconsistent to say it is the opinion both of Vic- 
toria and of Lessius; since Lessius himself says, it is the 
sentiment of Navarre and of your Father Henriquez, who 
teach, ''that he who has received a box on the ear may pur- 
sue his man instantly, and return him as many as he may 
deem necessary to make reparation to his honour." The 
only question therefore is, wiiether Lessius coinsides in the 
sentiment of these authors as well as his colleagues; and 
for this reason you add, *Hhat Lessius only mentions this 
opinion to refute it; so that I attribute to him a sentiment 
which he only states to oppose, the most base and shameful 
action of which a writer can be guilty." But I maintain, 
my Fathers, that he introduces it with approbation and to 
follow it. This is a question of fact, which it will be easy 
to determine. Let us see, then, how you prove your asser- 
tions, and you shall afterwards see how I prove mine. 

In order to show that Lessius is not of this opinion; you 
say that he condemns the practice of it; to demonstrate 
which, you cite a passage, 1. 2. c. 9. n. 82, where he has 
these words: <<I condemn the practice of it." It is true, if 
these words are sought for in Lessius, n. 82, they will be 
found according to your quotation; but what must be said. 
Fathers, when we find, at the same time, that in this place 
he is discussing a question totally different from the one of 



184 PROVINCIAL XETTERS. 

which we are speakings and the opinion, the practice of 
which he condemns in that place, is in no respect the same 
with what we have in hand, but one entirely distinct from it? 
To be convinced of this, it is only necessary to open the 
book itself, where we shall find all the rest of the discourse 
to the same purpose. 

He treats upon the question at n. 79, ^* Whether we may 
kill a person for a box on the ear," and concludes it at n, 
80, without uttering a single syllable of condemnation. As 
soon as this question is determined, he enters upon a new 
one in article 81, ^'whether we may kill another for slan- 
der?" And upon this latter it is at n. 82, he introduces 
the very words you have quoted: **I condemn the practice 
of it." 

Now, Fathers, is it not most shameful that you should 
dare to produce these words to make people believe that 
Lessius condemns the opinion of its being allowable to kill 
another for a box on the ear? and, having given only the 
proof referred to above, triumphs as you do in this strain, 
**Many persons of honour in Paris have already detected 
this flagrant falsity by reading Lessius, and have thus learn- 
ed what kind of dependence may be placed upon this calum- 
niator?" What, Fathers! is it thus you abuse the confi- 
dence which persons of honour have reposed in you? To 
make them understand that Lessius is not of a particular 
opinion, you open his book for them in a place where he is 
condemning quite another opinion; and as these persons do 
not question your veracity, and therefore do not think of 
examining whether the passage really refers to the point 
in debate, you cheat their credulity. I am persuaded. Fa- 
thers, that in order to excuse so infamous a falsehood, you 
must have recourse to your doctrine of equivocation, and 
reading this passage aloudy you say in a low, inaudible tonCf 
this belongs to another subject. But I cannot tell whether 
this reason, though it may satisfy your consciences, will be 
suflicient to silence the just complaints of these people of 
honour, when they find how you have imposed upon them. 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS, 185 

Pray do all yon can, Fatlicrs, to prevent their seeing my 
letters, as it is the only way which remains of maintaining 
your credit with them a little longer. I make a different 
use of yours, distributing them amongst all my friends, anx- 
ious that every body should read them. I fancy both of us 
act with good reason: for, after publishing this fourth im- 
posture with such pomp, you will be in sad disgrace if it 
should come to be known that you have substituted one pas- 
sage for another. It will be easily believed, that if you 
had found what you wished in the place where Lessius 
treats upon the subject, you would not have sought it else- 
where, and that you only had recourse to this measure, 
because you could not discover any thing where you were 
lookirig to answer your purpose. You were resolved to 
find something in Lessius to authorize your assertion, p. 
10. 1. 12: "that he does not admit this opinion to be proba- 
ble in speculation :'' and Lessius expressly states, in his 
conclusion, n. 80. **the opinion that one person may kill 
another for having given him a box on the ear is probable 
in speculation." Is not this, in so many explicit words, a 
contradiction to your statement? And who can sufficient- 
ly admire the effrontery with which you contradict a plain 
matter of fact, even by using the very same tcrms^ so that, 
instead of concluding from your suppositious passage, that 
Lessius was not of this opinion, he positively declares by 
Lis own expressions that he really is. 

You were desirous, again, that Lessius should be made 

to affirm that *'he condemns the practice of it;" but, as I 

have before said, there is not a syllable of condemnation to 

be found in the passage. His language is, *^It appears 

that one ought not easily to allow the practice of it — in 

praxi non videturfacilejjermittenda.'* Is this, my Fatliers, 

the mode of speaking adopted by a man who condemns a 

maxim? Would you say that one ought not easily to allow 

the practice of adultery or incest? Ought we not, on the 

<:ontrary, to conclude, that as Lessius says no more, but 

that the practice ought not to be easilif permitted, iris opin- 
24 



185 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

ion is that it may be sometimesj though rarely ^ permitted? 
And, as if he were solicitous of teaching every body when 
it ought to be permitted, and thus removing all scruples out 
of the way of persons likely to be disgusted, and that might 
prove unseasonably troublesome, not knowing upon what 
occasions they might in practice be allowed to kill others, 
he has been careful to point out what they ought to avoid 
in practising this doctrine conscientiously. Do hear him, 
my Fathers: <*One ought not, methinks," says he, *<easily 
to permit it, because of the danger of being excited by a 
spirit of hatred and revenge, or passion, or lest it should 
occasion too many murders." Hence it is obvious that, 
according to Lessius, murder is still permitted in prac- 
tice, if inconveniences be aA'oided, that is to say, if one can 
perpetrate the deed without hatred or revenge, and under 
circumstances which do not excite to a too frequent repeti- 
tion of murders/ 

Are you desirous of an example, my good Fathers? You 
shall have one of recent occurrence. It is that of the box 
of the ear at Compeigne. You must admit that the pet'son 
who received it has evinced by his behaviour, the great 
command he possessed over the passions of hatred and re- 
venge. Nothing remained but to avoid too numerous mur- 
ders; and you know, Fathers, that it is so very rare for 
Jesuits to give blows to officers of tiie king's household, 
that there w as no reason to apprehend a murder on that ac- 
count would have occasioned too many others. You can- 
not, therefore, deny but that this Jesuit might have been 
slain with a good conscience, and that the offended party 
might, in this instance, have availed himself of the doctrine 
of Lessius: and perhaps, my Fathers, he would have done 
so, had . he been educated in your school, and taught by 
Escobar, *^that a person who has received a box on the ear, 
is reputed to have lost his honour, till he has killed the 
person who gave it him." But you have reason to be- 
lieve, that his having received quite opposite instructions 
from a curate, no mighty favourite of yours, contributed 
not a little to save the life of a Jesuit. 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 187 

Pray say no more, then, of the inconveniences to be 
avoided on so many occasions, without which, murder is al- 
lowed in practise upon the authority of Lessius. This your 
writers have fully acknowledged, as quoted by Escobar in 
his Practice of Homicide according to your Society. **Is it al- 
lowed," says he, <'to kill the person who gives you a box 
on the ear? Lessius states it is so in speculation, but that 
it ouglit not to be advised in practice — non consulendum in 
praxi — on account of the danger which may arise from ha- 
tred or from murders prejudicial to the state. But the 

OTHER authors HAVE DECIDED, THAT IF THESE INCON- 
VENIENCES BE AVOIDED, IT IS ALLOWED AND SAFE INT 

PRACTICE — in praxi probahileni et tutam judicarunt Hen- 
rique%, &c. 

Behold how opinions advance, by degrees, to the high- 
est probability! To what a pitch have you carried the 
opinion just mentioned, by admitting it without any dis- 
tinction either in speculation or practice, in these words: **It 
is lawful, i!pon receiving a box on the ear, instantly to return 
it by a stroke with a sword, not out of revenge, but for the 
preservation of ■ one's honour." Your Fathers at Caen, 
taught the same doctrine in 1644, in their public writings, 
which the university presented to parliament in tlieir third 
request against your doctrine of Homicide, in p. 339 of the 
volume tlien printed. 

Observe, then, Fathers, that your own authors them- 
selves destroy this futile distinction between speculation 
and practice, which the university has treated with ridi- 
cule, and the invention of which as one of your political 
secrets it is well to disclose: for, besides that the know- 
ledge of it is requisite to your fifteenth, sixteenth, seven- 
teenth, and eighteenth impostures, it is always very proper 
and necessary to discover by degrees the principles of your 
mysterious policy. 

Whenever you have undertaken to decide upon cases of 
conscience in a favourable and accommodating manner, you 
have found some of Ihem in which religion alone was con- 



188 PROVIJiTCIAL XETTERS. 

cerned, as questions relating to contrition, penitence, the 
love of God, and all others which refer to the inward feelings 
of conscience. But you have discovered others, in 
which the state was as much concerned as religion; such 
as those which regard usury, bankruptcy, homicide, and 
others of a similar nature. And it is very affecting to those 
who cherish a genuine love to the church, to witness, in an 
incalculable variety of cases, in which you have only had 
religion to oppose, how you have, without hesitation, dis- 
tinction, or fear, overthrown the laws; as appears most 
evidently in your presumptuous boldness, against penitence 
and the love of God; because you were aware this was not 
the appropriate place for the visible exercise of divine jus- 
tice. But, where both religion and the state were interest- 
ed, your apprehensions of human justice have induced you 
to divide your decisions, and to form two questions upon 
these subjects; the one you call speculation, in which, con- 
sidering crimes in themselves, and not in reference to the 
w^elfare of the state, but solely to the law of God by which 
they are interdicted, you have allowed them without the 
slightest hesitation, 'thus subverting the law of God which 
condemns them; — the other you term 'practice^ in which, 
considering the injury the state might suffer, and the pre- 
sence of the magistrates who maintain the public safety, 
you do not always approve of tliose murders and crimes in 
practice which are allowed in speculation, so that you 
contrive to shelter yourselves from the judges. 

Upon that question, for example, '^whether it is lawful 
to kill for slander," your authors, Filiutius, tr. 29. cap. 3. 
n. 52, Reginaldus, 1. 21. cap. 5. n. 63. and others, reply, 
^*it is allowable in speculation — exprobabili opinione licet — 
but I do not admit of it in practice, on account of the num- 
ber of murders it may sanction, and which would prove 
detrimental to the state, if all slanderers were to be slain; 
and besides, such murderers would be punished by justice.'* 
In this manner your opinions begin to exhibit themselves 
under a distinction by which you subvert the interests of 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 189 

religion alone, without sensibly aifecting the state. Hence 
you imagine yourselves to be in perfect security, suppo- 
sing the credit you have obtained in the cliurch will pre- 
vent her punishing your offences against truth, and that 
the precautions you have adopted, not too easily to allow 
those permissions in practice, will screen you on the 
part of the magistrates, who, not being judges in cases of 
conscience, have not properly to do with any thing but the 
external act. Thus an opinion which would be condemned 
under the name oi practice, shows itself in safety under that 
of speculation. 

Having formed this basis, it is easy to construct the rest 
of your maxims. There is an infinite distance between the 
divine prohibition against murder, and the speculative 
permission given by your authors. But the distance is very 
trifling between this permission and the practice. It now 
then only remains to show, that what is permitted in spec- 
ulation, is so in practice also; and for this we have ample 
evidence. You have produced it in cases of much greater 
difficulty. Do you wish, good Fathers, to see how this can 
be? Follow the reasoning of Escobar, who has clearly de- 
cided it in the first of the six volumes of his great Moral 
Theology, of which I have before spoken, where he seems 
to have quite a different light from what he had in his col- 
lection from your four-and-twenty elders; for, at that time, 
he thought there might be probable opinions in speculation, 
which might not be safe in conscience; but he has since 
thought the reverse, and has strongly established it in his 
last work: so much has the doctrine of probability gained 
by time, as well as each probable opinion in particular! 
Attend to his language in jyrolog, n. 15. *^I do not see how 
it can possibly arise, that what is allowed in speculation 
should not be so in practice, since what can be accomplish- 
ed in practice depends upon what is permitted in specula- 
tion; and these things differ from each other only as cause 
and effect. It is speculation which determines action. — 
Whence it follows that one mat/, with a safe conscience, fol- 



190 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

low in practice the opinions which are probable in speculation; 
and even with more safety than those which have not been 
so fully examined by speculation." 

Escobar really reasons admirably sometimes; and, in 
fact, there is such a connection between speculation and 
practice, that when one has taken root you make no diflScul- 
ty in permitting the undisguised progress of the other. 
This has been seen in the permission to kill for a box on the 
ear, which, from simple speculation, has been boldly car- 
ried forward by Lessius into practice that one ought not ea- 
sily to grant, and from thence by Escobar to an easy prac- 
tice^ from which your Fathers at Caen have advanced it to 
sifull permission without any distinction between theory 
and practice. 

Thus, by little and little you make your opinions grow. 
Were they all at once to appear so monstrously extrava- 
gant, the utmost horror would be excited; but this slow and 
imperceptible progress gradually habituates the public to 
them and diminishes their offensiveness. By this means, 
the permission to murder, so odious to the church and state, 
first insinuates itself into the church, and afterwards from 
the church into the state. 

Similar success has attended the opinion respecting kill- 
ing for slander; for that has now obtained the same permis- 
sion without any distinction. I sliould not have stopped to 
report these passages of your Fathers, had it not been ne- 
cessary to abash the confidence with which you have twice 
asserted in your fifteenth imposture, p. 26 and 30, **There 
is not one Jesuit who admits murder for slander." When 
you write in this manner, Fathers, you should prevent my 
seeing it, because it is so easily confuted: for not only your 
Fathers Reginaldus, Filiutius, &c. have allowed of it in 
speculation, as I have before stated; and not only does the 
principle of Escobar insensibly lead to the practice, but I 
will say further, that many of your authors have allowed it 
in so many words; amongst others, Father Hereau, in his 
public lectures, in consequence of which the king ordered 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 191 

him into confinement in your house, having tauglit amongst 
many other errors, "that when he who defames us in the pres- 
ence of people of honour continues to do so after being warn- 
ed to desist; we may kill him, not indeed publicly for 
fear of scandal, but in secret — sed clam." 

I have already spoken of Father Launy, and you are not 
ignorant that his doctrine upon this subject was censured 
in 1649, by the university of Louvain: nevertheless, two 
months have not yet elapsed since your Father Des Bois 
maintained, at Rouen, this very condemned doctrine of Fa- 
ther Launy, teaching, **that it is lawful for a monk to de- 
fend the honour he has acquired by his virtue, even by kill- 
ing the person who dares to attack his reputation — etiam 
cam morte invasoris:^* which has occasioned such scandal 
in that city, tliat all the curates have united to impose si- 
lence upon him, and oblige him by canonical means to re- 
tract his doctrine. The affair is at present before the eccle- 
siastical court. 

What can you now say, Fathers? Will you, after this, 
undertake to maintain that ''no Jesuit is of opinion that one 
may kill another for scandal?" Was any thing more need- 
ed to convince you of this than the opinions even of your 
own Fathers, since they do not forbid to kill in speculation, 
but only in practice, ^'on account of the ill consequences 
which may accrue to the state?" I ask then. Fathers, if 
our disputes relate to any thing else than an examination 
whether you have overturned the law of God which prohi- 
bits homicide? The question is not whether you have in- 
jured the state, but religion? To what purpose is it then, 
in a dispute of this nature, to show that you have spared 
the state, when you make it evident at the same time, that 
you have subverted the interests of religion, by saying as 
you do, p. 28. 1. 3. *<that the sense of Reginaldus on the 
question relating to killing for slander is, that a private 
person has a right to adopt this mode of defence, consider- 
ing it only in itself?" I wish for nothing more than this 
admission to confound you. *^\ private person," say you. 



192 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

<*has a right to adopt this mode of defence," — that is to 
say, he has a right to kill for slander — ^considering the 
thing in itself" — consequently. Fathers, the law of God, 
which expressly forbids murder, is, by this decision, de- 
stroyed. 

It is of no avail afterwards to say, "that it is unlawful and 
criminal, even according to the law of God, on account of the 
murders and disorders which would occur in the state, be- 
cause we are obliged, by divine appointment, to regard 
the welfare of the state.'* This is wandering from the 
question; for, my good Fathers, there are two laws to be 
observed — the one prohibits murder, the other forbids in- 
juring the state. Reginaldus, perhaps, has not broken the 
law which enjoins our doing nothing to injure the state; 
but he has certainly violated that which commands us not 
to kill; but the latter is the only one which relates to the 
present subject. 

Moreover, your other Fathers, who iiave allowed these 
murders in practice, have nullified both commands. 

But let us advance a little further. We are perfectly 
aware that you do sometimes forbid doing injury to the state; 
and you allege that your design is to observe the law of 
God, which requires us to give it our support. This may be 
true, though it is by no means certain, since you may do the 
same thing merely through fear of the judges. Let us then 
examine from which of these principles it proceeds. 

Is it not obvious. Fathers, that if you were truly to love 
God, and the observance of his law were the primary and 
principal object in view, this regard would uniformly pre- 
dominate in every important decision, and w ould influence 
you on all occasions to take the deepest interest in religion ? 
But if, on the contrary, we see, that in so many cases, you 
violate the most solemn commands which God has enjoined 
upon man, when there is only his law to oppose; and that 
even on the occasions now in question, you annihilate the 
law of God, which prohibits these actions as criminal in 
themselves, and seem to be deterred from apjiroving them 



PROVINCTAT. LETTERS. 193 

in practice, solely by a fear of the judges; tlo not you give 
us reason to believe that your apprehension has no regard 
to God, and that if you uphold his law in appearance, in 
what respects the duty of not doing injury to a state, it 
does not originate in any reverence for the law itself, but 
merely to gain your own ends, as all other religious politi- 
cians of no piety have done. 

And will you really tell us. Fathers, that the law of God 
which forbids homicide, will sanction murder for slander? 
and after having thus violated the eternal law of heaven, 
can you think of removing the scandal you have occasioned, 
and persuade us that you pay a proper regard to it, by add- 
ing that you forbid the practice of it from considerations of 
state, and through fear of the judges? Is not this, in fact, 
raising a new scandal, not out of respect to the judges, for 
this is not what I reproach you for, and you are very ridic- 
ulous upon this point in page 29. I do not blame you for 
being afraid of the judges, but for being afraid of them only. 
This is the point — for this I censure you, because it is ma- 
king God less the enemy of crimes than man. Were you 
to say that one may kill a slanderer according to human 
judgment, though not according to God, this would have 
been more tolerable; but, to assert that wliat is too criminal 
to be endured by men, may be innocent and just in the eyes 
of God who is justice itself, what do you do but show to the 
M-hole world, by this monstrous and awful perversion, which 
is so opposite to the true spirit of saints, th^t you are bold 
against God and timid towards your fellow men? Had you 
sincerely intended to condemn these homicides, surely you 
would have allowed that command of God whicli forbids 
them, and had you ventured at first to permit these homi- 
cides, you would have openly permitted them in defiance of 
the laws of God and man. But as you have allowed them 
by insensible degrees, and took the magistrates by surprise, 
whose business it is to watch over the public safety, you have 
acted a wily part by separating your maxims, and, on the 

one side, proposing ''that it is allowable in speculation to 

25 



194 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

murder for slander*' (for you are left to examine things in 
speculation), and, on the other side, producing this detach- 
ed maxim, *nhat what is allowed in speculation is so also 
in practice." What concern does the state appear to have 
in this general and metaphysical proposition? In this man- 
ner these two principles being received separately are little 
suspected, and the vigilance of the magistrates is eludedj 
for it is only necessary to unite these maxims together to 
deduce from them the inference to which you tend, **tliat 
one may murder in practice for simple slander." 

Here we behold one of the finest specimens of your subtle 
policy, separating in your writings the maxims which you 
associate in your opinions. By these means, you have in- 
troduced your doctrine of probability, which I have so fre- 
quently explained; and this general principle being estab- 
lished, you advance things separately, which, though pos- 
sibly innocent in themselves, become horrible when con- 
joined with this pernicious principle. As an example of 
this, turn to page 11 of your impostures, where it is incum- 
bent upon me to answer this statement; 'Hhat many cele- 
brated divines are of opinion that one man may kill another 
for having given him a box on the ear." If, indeed, a 
person had said this who did not maintain the doctrine of 
probability, he could not be subject to any reproof, since it 
would, in that case, be only a simple recital wliich could 
be of no conse(iuence; but you. Fathers, and all others wiio 
hold this dangerous doctrine, **that whatever celebrated 
authors approve is safe in conscience," with another to 
this purpose, *Hhat many celebrated authors are of opinion 
that one man may kill another for having given him a box 
on the ear," what are you doing but putting a dagger into 
the hands of every Christian to kill those who have offend- 
ed them, by giving them an assurance tliat they may do it 
with a safe conscience, because in this they will only follow 
the opinion of so many grave authors? 

What abominable language, which, while stating that 
some authors hold a damnable opinion, decides at the very 



PHOVINCIAL LETTERS. 195 

same time in favour of that damnable opinion, and makes 
conscience'sanCtion every thing it merely reports! We un- 
derstand it, Fathers! This is the peculiar language of your 
school: and it is truly astonishing that you should be so au- 
dacious as to talk in this high strain, since it displays your 
sentiments in so undisguised a manner, and convicts you 
of holding this opinion as safe in conscience, "that one 
man may kill another for a box on the ear," as soon as you 
have said that a multitude of celebrated authors maintain 
it. 

You can no more defend yourselves in this, than you can 
servo your purpose by those passages from Vasquez and 
Suarez which you oppose to me, in which they condemn 

those murders so much approved by their fraternity 

These testimonies, separated from the rest of your doc- 
trine, 'might dazzle people who know but little about it; but 
your principles and your maxims must be joined together. 
In this place you say that Vasquez does not allow of mur- 
ders,' but what do you state elsewhere? Why, truly, "that 
the probability of one sentiment does not prevent the prob- 
ability of a contrary sentiment;" and again, "it is allowa- 
ble to follow the least probable and the least sure, abandon- 
ing that which is most probable and most sure." What 
follows, from all this put together, but that we have per- 
fect liberty of conscience to adopt any one we please of tliose 
opposite opinions? And what becomes. Fathers, of that 
fruit which you expected from all these citations? It is all 
gone; since it is only necessary for your condemnation, to 
collect those maxims which you separate for your justifica- 
tion. Why, then, do you produce those passages of your 
authors which I have not quoted, to excuse those which I have 
cited, since they have nothing in common? What right 
does this give you to call me an impostor? Have I assert- 
ed that all your Fathers are equally depraved? Have I not 
said, on the contrary, that your principal interest consists 
in having ail kinds of opinions to suit all sorts of occasions? 
Does any one wish to kill ? Let him repair to Lessius. If 



196 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

the reverse, let him apply to Vasqiiez, that no one may be 
discontented at having no grave author on his side. Lessius 
will discourse of homicide like a heathen, and of almsgiv- 
ing perhaps like a Christian. Vasquez will speak of alms- 
giving like a heathen, and of homicide like a Christian. — 
But by means of probability, which both Vasquez and 
Lessius maintain, and which unites all your opinions in a 
kind of common coincidence, they will mutually blend each 
other's sentiments, and will be under an obligation to ab- 
solve those who have acted conformably to the opinions 
which each of them has condemned. You are thus per- 
plexed by variety: whereas, uniformity would be far more 
tolerable; and nothing can be more contrary to the express 
orders of St. Ignatius and your first generals, than this 
confused intermixture of all sorts of opinions. I shall, per- 
haps, some time say a little more upon this subject; and peo- 
ple will be surprised to find how much you have degenera- 
ted from the original spirit of your institution, and how the 
generals of your own order foresaw that the monstrous 
doctrines of your morality might become injurious, not on- 
ly to your society, but to the peace of the whole church. 

I must, however, tell you that no advantage can be gain- 
ed to your cause from the opinion of Vasquez. It would 
be extraordinary indeed, if, among so many Jesuits who 
have become authors, only one or two could be found to 
coincide in the principles common to all Christians. Tiiere 
is no honour in maintaining that one cannot commit mur- 
der for a box on the ear according to the Gospel, but de- 
nying it to be shameful and horrible: so far then is this 
from justifying you, that nothing can be more to your dis- 
advantage; since, although some of your doctors hav3 told 
you the truth, you have not followed it, but love darkness 
rather than light Vasquez has taught you, *'that it is a 
heathenish and not a Christian sentiment, to say one may 
return a box on the ear with a blow of a stick; that it is 
subversive both of the law and the Gospel, to assert we 
may kill a man for it, and that the most abandoned of man- 



PTIOVINCIAL LETTEllS. 197 

kind acknowledge this to be tlie case." You, however, in 
contradiction to this universal admission, suffer Lessius, Es- 
cobar, and otiiers, to decide that all the prohibitions which 
God has issued against homicide, do not render it impro- 
per to kill a person for giving a box on the ear. To what 
purpose, then, is it to produce this passage of Vasquez, in 
opposition to the opinion of Lessius, unless it be to sliow 
that Lessius, according to Vasquez, is a heathen and a 
scoundrel? But this I should not dare to affirm. W hat 
conclusion is to be drawn, but that Lessius destrorjs the 
law and the Gospel — that at the last day Vasquez will con- 
demn Lessius on this point, as Lessius will condemn Vas- 
quez on some otlicr — and that all your writers will rise up 
in judgment against each other for mutual condemnation, 
on account of their dreadful, outrageous opposition to the 
law of Christ? 

Since then, my Fathers, your doctrine of probability ren- 
ders the good sentiments of some of your authors useless 
to the church, and serviceable only to promote your own 
policy; they show by their contradictions, your duplicity 
of heart, which, indeed, you have fully evinced, by decla- 
ring on the one hand, that Vasquez and Suarez are opposed 
to homicide, and on the other, that many celebrated authors 
are in favour of it, for the purpose of offering two ways to 
mankind, by perverting the simplicity of the Gospel of God, 
which pronounces a curse upon the double-minded, and pro- 
viding two ways for themselves — Vge dujdici corde, et ingre- 
dienti duabus viisl 



198 PROVINCIAL LETTERS, 



LETTER XIV. 



Jesuitical Maxims on the Subject of Homicide refuted by the 
holy Fathers. Reply ^ in passing, to some of their Calum- 
nies, and a Comparison of their Doctrine with the Form 
observed in pronouncing Judgment in Criminal Cases. 



Faris, Oct. 23, 1656. 
Reverend Fathers, 
If I had only to reply to the three remaining impostures on 
the subject of homicide, it would be unnecessary to detain 
your attention long — a few words would suffice, as will be 
soon seen, for your refutation; but as I feel persuaded it is 
more important to impress the world with a just horror of 
your opinions than to verify my own citations, I shall be 
obliged to employ the greater part of this letter in refuting 
your maxims, and representing how remote you are from 
the sentiments of the church, and even from nature. 

The permission to kill, which you give on so many occa- 
sions, evinces that in this affair you have so forgotten the 
law of God, and so extinguished the light of nature, as to 
need reminding of the simplest principles of religion and 
common sense. What can be more natural than the follow- 
ing sentiment: ** One private individual has no right over 
the life of another. We so well know this of ourselves,'* 
says St. Chrysostom, <*that when God established the law 
against murder, he did not add, it was on account of its 
being an evil, because the law supposes that men have al- 
ready learned this truth from nature." 

This commandment has been in force in all ages. The 
Gospel confirms the law, and the decalogue only renewed 
that which mankind had received from God previous to the 
law in the person of Noah, from whom the human race 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 199 

were to spring. At the renewal of the world God addressed 
that patriarch: "At the hand of a man, even at the hand of 
a man's brother, will I require the life of a man. Whoso 
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for 
in the image of God created he man." 

This general prohibition deprives men of all power over 
the lives of others; and God has so reserved it to himself 
alone, that, according to the principles of Christianity, 
which in this entirely oppose the false notions of paganism, 
a man does not possess power over his own life. But, as 
providence has seen fit to preserve mankind in society, 
and to punish the wicked who should disturb them, he has 
himself ordained laws for the execution of criminals; so that 
those murders which, independently of his appointment, 
would be punishable, become, in consequence of such ap- 
pointment, praiseworthy and just. St. Augustine has sta- 
ted this in an admirable manner in 1. 1. ch. 21. of his 
City of God. ''Some exceptions," says he, <^are made by 
God himself to this general prohibition against murder, 
either by the laws he has prescribed for the capital punish- 
ment of the guilty, or by the particular commands he has 
sometimes given for the execution of certain individuals. — 
In this case it is not man that kills, but God, of whom man 
is only the instrument, as a sword is in the hand of him who 
uses it. But, with the exception of these cases, whoever 
kills another, is guilty of murder." 

It is certain, then, Fathers, that God alone possesses 
a right to take away life, nevertheless, having enacted laws 
for the execution of criminals, he has made kings or em- 
pires the depositories of this power. This is what St. Paul 
teaches us when speaking of the autliority of potentates to 
put men to death, he represents it as descending from heav- 
en, *'they bear not the sword in vain; they are the minis- 
ters of God's revengers to execute wrath upon him that 
doeth evil." 

But as God intrusts them with tliis power, he requires 
them to exercise it as he does himself, that is, with justice, 



200 PROVINCIAL lETTEHS. 

as St. Paul expresses it in the same place: ^ 'For rulers are 
not a terror to good works, but to the evil. AVilt thou then 
not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and 
thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister 
of God to thee for good." And this restriction, so far from 
diminishing their power, on the contrary exalts and assimi- 
lates it to that of God, who is incapable of evil, but al- 
mighty in doing good^ which distinguishes it from that of 
devils, who are impotent to good, and powerful only in do- 
ing evil. The solc^ difference between God and earthly po- 
tentates is this: God being justice and wisdom itself, can 
destroy upon the spot whom he pleases, and in any manner 
he pleases; for, besides that he is the sovereign master of 
men's lives, it is certain that he cannot take them away with- 
out cause or without consideration, since he is equally in- 
capable of injustice and error. But princes cannot act in 
the same manner; because, though the ministers of God, 
they are nevertheless men and not gods. They may be 
surprised by false impressions, exasperated by surmises, or 
transported by passion; and this has led them to submit to 
plans of Imman arrangement in the establishment of judges 
in their dominions, to whom they have communicated this 
power, in order that tlie authority with which God has in- 
vested them, may be employed solely for the purpose for 
which it is given. 

To be exempt from homicide, therefore, it is requisite to 
be guided by the authority and justice of God; otherwise 
we commit sin if we kill another with his authority but 
without his justice, or without his authority though in con- 
currence with his justice. From the necessity of this union 
it is, that, according to St. Augustin, *<whoever killsa cri- 
minal without authority becomes criminal himself, for this 
great reason, that he usurps an authority which God has 
not delegated to him:" tlie judges, on the contrary, who 
possess this authority, are nevertheless guilty of murder, if 
they cause the innocent to be put to death contrary to the 
laws, w^hich they ought to follow. 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 201 

Such. Fathers, are the principles which have obtained, 
in all ages and places, to secure the peace and safety of the 
community, and upon which all thelegislatorsof the world, 
both sacred and profane, have founded their laws. Never 
did even pagan nations deviate from this rule, unless when 
no other way remained of preserving chastity or life: for 
as Cicero states, tliey believed **the laws themselves seemed 
to offer weapons for the defence of persons in sucli extremi- 
ties." 

But this case, with wliich I have at present nothing to 
do, being excepted, there never was a law which allowed 
private individuals to kill others, and permitted it, as you 
do, to guard against an affront, or prevent the loss of hon- 
our or of property, when life is in no kind of danger: no, 
that is what I affirm was never done by infidtls. Indeed, 
they have expressly forbid it, for the law of the twelve ta- 
bles at Rome enacted, <'that it was not allowable to kill a 
robber in the day time who did not defend himself with 
arms." This had been before prohibited in Exodus, c 22: 
and the law Furem ad Legem Corneliam, taken from Ul- 
pian, <*forbids the killing of robbers even in the night, who 
do not tlireaten or attempt our lives," Cujas, in tit dig, de 
Justit. et Jure ad Leg. 3. 

Pray inform me, my good Fathers, by what authority 
you permit that which divine and human laws concur in 
prohibiting? And what right has Lessius to assert, 1. 2. c 
9. n. 66. and 72, **that the book of Exodus forbids our kill- 
ing thieves in the day time, wlio do not defend themselves 
with arms; and they who do put them to death are punish- 
able in justice: but they would not be guilty in conscience 
when there is no certainty, or at least a doubt, of being able 
to recover what has been stolen, as Sotus observes, because 
there is no obligation to run the hazard of losing any thing 
to save a thief? and that all this may be done by ecclesias- 
tics themselves?" What prodigious effrontery! The law 
of Moses, forsooth, punishes those who kill thieves when 

they do not endanger our lives, and the law of the Gospel 
26 



202 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

absolves tliem ! ! What then, is Jesus Christ come to destroy 
the law and not to fiifil it? — *'The judges," says Lessius, 
*^Would punish such as kill in such a case, but they would 
have no guilt lying upon their conscience." Is the morali- 
ty of Jesus Christ, then, more cruel and less inimical to 
murder than that of heathens, whence tlie judges have taken 
those civil laws which condemn it? Do Christians place a 
higher value upon the possessions of this, or less upon hu- 
man life, than idolators and infidels? Pray, Fathers, what 
foundation have you for this representation? You have 
neither the express law of God nor man, but merely this 
strange mode of reasoning — "The laws allow of self-defence 
against thieves by repelling force with force;-— but defence 
being permitted, murder is also allowed, otherwise self-de- 
fence would be impossible." 

But, my worthy Fathers, it is perfectly false to say — 
self-defence is permitted, therefore murder is allowed. It 
is the cruel mode of defence which is the source of all these 
errors, and which is called by the faculty of Louvain, a 
murdering defence — defensio occisiva, in tlieir censui*eupon 
the doctrine of your Father Launy on homicide. I main- 
tain then, according to the laws, there is so great a differ- 
ence between murder and self-defence, that in those very 
cases where defence is permitted, murder is forbid when a 
man's life is not endangered. Listen to Cujas in the same 
place: ^'It is lawful to repel the man who is going to seize 
npon any of your property, hut it is not Icnvjul to kill him: 
and again, < 'if any one come up to strike and not to kill 
you, it is indeed lawful to repulse him, hut it is not lawj\il 
to kill him." 

Who then has authorised you to say^ with Molina, Regi- 
nald us, Filiutius, Escobar, Lessius, and others, "it is law- 
ful to kill the man who is going to strike you?" and again, 
**itis lawful to kill the person who intends to offer you an 
insult, according to the concurrent opinion of the casuists, 
as Lessius affirms, n. 74 — ex sententid omnium.'' By what 
authority do you, who are but private individuals your- 



PROVI.NCIAI. liETTJillS. 20S 

selves, comiminicate this power of killing to other private 
individuals, and even to ecclesiastics? And how dare you 
usurp the right of life and death, which exclusively helongs 
to God, and is the most glorious attribute of omnipotent 
sovereignty? To this your answer was required; hut you 
fancy you have given a satisfactory reply, by merely say- 
ing, in the thirteenth imposture, *'Thc price for which Mo- 
lina allows of killing a thief who runs away without doing 
any violence, is not so little as I said, audit must he great- 
er than six ducats.'^ What weakness is this! And what 
consideration would you fix? Fifteen or sixteen ducats? — 
But you would not the less incur my censure. You cannot, 
however, affirm that it exceeds the value of a horse; forLes- 
sius, 1. 2. c. 9. n. 74. positively states, ^'It is lawful to kill 
a thief who runs av/ay with your liorse;" but I tell you fur- 
ther, that this value is, according to Molina, settled at six 
ducats, as I have related; and if you will not rely on my 
testimony, take an umpire whom you cannot refuse. It is 
your Father Reginaldus, who in explaining this passage of 
Molina, 1. 21. n. 68, affirms, *'that Molina there deter- 
mines the value for which it is not lawful to kill, at three 
or four or five ducats." So, Fatliers, I am not only sup- 
ported by Molina, but even hy Reginaldus. 

It will prove no less easy to refute your fourteenth impos- 
ture, with regard to the permission of Molina, *'to kill a 
thief who robs you of your crown-piece." This is so evi- 
dent that Escobar introduces it, tr. 1. ex. 7. n. 44. where 
he states, that * 'Molina regularly fixes tlie price for which a 
man may be killed at a crown." All you charge upon me is, 
that I have suppressed the concluding words of this passage 
— "that in this case the moderation of a just defence ought 
to be regarded." But why do you not complain of Esco- 
bar for a similar omission? Methinks you are rather defi- 
cient here. You suppose we do not understand what you 
mean by self-defence. Are we not aware that it signifies a 
murdering defence? You would have us believe that Moli- 
na merely intended, by his expression, that when a person 



204 PROTINCIAIi LETTEHS. 

is in danger of life by defending a crown-piece, he may 
kill the robber in self-defence. If so, Fathers, why does 
Molina add in the same passage, that he differs in this 'par- 
ticular from Carrerus and Bald, who admit of killing 
another to save one's own life? No, no. I assure you Mo- 
lina only means, that if one could save the crown-piece with- 
out killing the thief, the murder ought not to be perpetra- 
ted^ but, if this cannot be done without killing him, even 
tliough no risk of life be incurred, as when the thief is un- 
armed, it is lawful to kill him in order to save the crown- 
piece, in doing which he tliinks a man does not exceed the 
moderation of a just defence! To prove this, he shall ex- 
plain himself, tom. 4. tr. 3. d. 11. n. 5: "A person does 
not exceed'the moderation of just defence, even though he 
take arms against such as have none, or take better wea- 
pons. I know some are of a different opinion, but I can- 
not coincide with their judgment, even in the external tri- 
bunal." 

Thus, Fathers, it is plain that your authors allow of 
murder in defence of one's goods or honour, even when life 
is in no danger: and upon this principle duels are authori- 
sed, as I have alieady so often shown without your at- 
tempting any reply. In your writings you attack but a 
single passage of Father Layman which allows killing'* 
when a man would otherwise be in danger of losing his for- 
tune or his honour;" and you assert, that I have suppres- 
sed the following words: ^Hhis is a very rare case-'" I am 
really all admiration, Fathers! What charming misrepre- 
sentations you impute to me! As if the only question were, 
whether this case occurred but seldom? whereas it is, 
whether duelling is not permitted in that passage? These 
are tw^o very distinct considerations. Layman, as a casu- 
ist, was to judge whether duelling is lawful; and he de- 
clares it is. We are able to judge without his aid, wheth- 
er it is of rare occurrence, and hesitate not to affirm it is 
extremely common. But if you would rather take your 
good friend Diana's word for it, he tells you expressly it 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 205 

is very common, part 5. tract. 14. misc. 2. resol. 99. — 
Common or uncommon, however, or whether Layman in 
this point follows Navarre, as you wish us to believe, is it 
not abominable that he should consent to this opinion? that, 
in order to preserve a false honour, it should be made law- 
ful in conscience to accept a challenge in opposition to the 
edicts of all Christian states: and in defiance of all the can- 
ons of the church, while you have neither laws, canons, 
nor the authority of scripture, or of the Fathers, nor the ex- 
ample of a single saint to support these diabolical maxims 
— nothing, nothing whatever but this impious mode of rea- 
soning — **IIonour is dearer than life: but it is lawful to kill 
in defence of one's life; therefore it is lawful to kill in defence 
of one's honour?" What, then, because the irregularities 
of mankind have led them to prefer this false honour to that 
life wiiich God has bestowed upon us to use in his service, 
it is allowable to kill each other for its preservation!! It 
is this love of honour above life whicli is of so mischievous 
a tendency; and yet this vicious feeling, which is sufficient 
to contaminate the purest actions, if referred to that end^ 
is made to justify the most criminal ones, only because they 
are so referred. 

What strange perversion ! and to what extravagances 
are you leading us! It is abundantly evident, that the 
same principle will justify our killing others for much less 
things whicli may happen to be put in competition with ho- 
nour:" as for example, on account of an apple- 

Nay, Fathers, do not exclaim against me, and say that 
I am deducing pernicious consequences from your doctriniPf 
for I am supported by the authority of the grave Lessius, 
who writes tiius, n. 68: *'It is not lawful to kill another 
for the preservation of a thing of trifling value, as a crown- 
or an apple, ant pro- porno, if it were not for the shame of 
losing it; in that case a man may seize it again, and even 
kill the thief, if necessary, to regain it — et, si opus estocci- 
dere, because tliis is not so mucli to defend one's property 
as one'.s honour." Now thi3> good Fathers, seems very 



206 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

plain. But to crown all by a maxim which is wonderful- 
ly comprehensive, attend to Father Hereau, who copies 
from Lessius — ^Hhe right of defence extends to every thing 
which is necessary to guard us from any kind oe injury." 

What monstrous consequences are included in this inhu- 
man principle, and how ought the whole world to oppose 
it, especially public men! It is not merely the general in- 
terest, but their own, which is deeply concerned; since your 
casuists, quoted in my letters, extend their permission to 
kill, even to them,* and thus the factious, who apprehend 
punishment for their delinquencies, which do not seem 
wicked in their own view, easily persuading themselves that 
they are oppressed by violence, will at the same time ima- 
gine, ^'that the right of defence extends to every thing 
which is necessary to guard us from any kind of injury." 
They will no longer have to strive against that remorse of 
conscience which stifles so many crimes in their birth, but 
\\\\\ think only of surmounting external obstacles. 

But I will say no more, Fathers, upon this point, nor 
of other murders which you have allowed, and which are 
still more abominable, and at the same time of more impor- 
tance to the welfare of nations, than all those of which Les- 
sius and other of your authors treat in so undisguised a 
manner,* the former particularly, in the fourth and tenth 
doubts. O that these horrible maxims had never escaped 
out of the bottomless pit, and that the devil, who is the 
original author of them, had never found men sufficiently 
devoted to his service to promulgate them amongst Chris- 
tians! 

It is obvious, from what I have been stating, that there 
is a wide difference between the relaxness of your opinions 
and the strictness of the laws of civilized and even pagan 
nations. How must they appear when compared with ec- 
clesiastical laws, which are incomparably more holy, since 
the church alone understands and possesses true holiness? 
This chaste spouse of the Son of God, who, like her divine 
liord, could shed her own blood for others, but not theirs 



PROVIXriAL LETTERS. 207 

for her, cherishes a peculiar horror of murder in propor- 
tion to the extraordinary illumination she has received 
from God. She not only considers men as men, but as the 
image of that God ^vhom she supremely adores, and enter- 
tains a holy and respectful regard toward every individual, 
as purchased by an infinite price, to be the temple of the 
living God. For this reason, she considers the death of a 
man who is executed without the sanction of his authority, 
not only as murder but sacrilege, depriving her of one of 
her members; because whether he be or be not a believer, 
she always views him either as being one of her children or 
capacitated to be so. 

For these reasons, since God became man for the salva- 
tion of men, tliey are rendered so important to the church, 
that she has always punished murder which destroys them, 
as one of the greatest crimes that can be committed against 
God. Allow me to adduce some examples, not to intimate 
that all such severities ought to be continued, for I know 
that the church has authority to manage external discipline 
variously, but to elucidate her immutable opinion upon this 
subject. For the j^enance which she appoints for murder 
may differ according to the change of times, but her horror 
for this atrocity can never change under any conceivable 
vicissitudes of circumstances. 

The church would not, for a long period, be reconciled 
to such as were guilty of wilful murder, but at death, though 
you are. The celebrated council of Ancyra condemned 
them to penance during tlie rest of their days; and the 
church has since considered it a very great indulgence to- 
wards them, to reduce the time to an indefinite number of 
years. But the more effectually to deter from wilful mur- 
der, she punishes with much severity those which have oc- 
curred by accident, as maybe seen in St. Basil, St. Grego- 
ry Nyssenus, and in the decretals of Popes Zachary and 
Alexander II. The canons cited by Isaac, bishcp of Lan- 
gres, t. 2, 13. ordain ''seven years of penance for a mur- 
der in self-defence;'* and we see St. Hildebert, bishop of 



208 PROVINCIAL LETTEKS. 

Mans, inliis reply to Ives of Cliartres.. states, ^'liehad done 
right in degrading a bishop for life who had killed a thief 
with a stone in his own defence." 

Dareyoi% after this, assert tliat your decisions are con- 
formable to tlie spirit and canons of the church? I defy you 
to point out one tliat gives permission to murder for the 
preservation of one's property merely; for I do not speak 
of those cases in which a man is forced to defend his life, 
se siiaque libe7'ando. Your own authors admit there are 
none: as, amongst others, Father Launy, torn. 5. disp. 36. 
n. 136: * 'There is no law," says he, ^ 'human or divine, 
which expressly allows of killing a thief who does not stand 
npon his defence." But this you permitin so many words. 
I defy you fui'ther, to point out a single cannon which sanc- 
tions murder for honour, for a box on the ear, for an af- 
front, and for a slander. I defy you to refer to any one 
that permits the killing of witnesses, judges, and magis- 
trates, whatever injustice we may have reason to appre- 
hend. The spirit of the church is far from these seditious 
maxims, which open the doors to insurrection, to which the 
populace is so naturally addicted. Slie has always taught 
her children not to render evil for evil, to give place to 
wrath, not to resist violence, to render to every one his due, 
honour, tribute, submission, to obey magistrates and supe- 
riors, even though unjust; because we ought always to res- 
pect the power of God who has appointed them to rule.— 
She prohibits, even more strongly than the civil law^s do, 
deciding in their own cause; and it is by her spirit that 
Christian kings avoid the punishment even of capital 
crimes, referring them to tlie judges to execute the law ac- 
cording to the proper forms of justice; w^hich is so opposite 
to your conduct, that the comparison ought to cover you 
with blushes. And since I am thus led to the subject, let 
me beseech you to pay attention to the difference between 
your method of putting your enemies to death, and that of 
the judges in executing criminals. 

Every body, Fathers, knows that private individuals 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 209 

have no power to seek the death of any one; and that if a 
person have ruined our fortune, crippled our bodies, burn- 
ed our houses, murdered our father, and sliown himself re- 
solved to destroy our reputation' or even to assassinate us, 
justice would not listen to our requisition to have him put 
to death. It has been necessary, therefore, to appoint pub- 
lic persons to demand this execution in the name of the 
king, or rather on behalf of God. Is it, in your opinion, 
Fathers, out of mere grimace and form, that judges have 
adopted this regulation? Have tliey not done it in order 
to make tlie civil laws conformable to those of the Gospel — 
that the external proceedings of justice might not be con- 
tradictory to the internal sentiments which Christians ought 
to cherish? It is obvious, how much this first mode in 
which justice operates, surprises you; but the rest will ut- 
terly confound you. 

Suppose, then, these public functionaries should require 
the death of the individual who has perpetrated all these 
crimeS; what is to be done? Will they instantly plunge a 
dagger into his bosom? No, no. The life of men is too 
important to proceed with such incaution; the laws do not 
dispense power to all sorts of people, but only to judges of 
tried probity and capacity. Do you imagine that one is suffi- 
cient to condemn a man to deatli? No, Fathers, there must 
be at least seven: and of these seven there must not be one 
who was ever offended by the criminal, lest passion should 
bias or corrupt his judgment. You knov/ also. Fathers, 
that for the purpose of having the mind clear and undis- 
tracted, the morning is the time appointed for the discharge of 
these duties: such is the care taken in a proceeding of so much 
importance, in which they are the vicegerents and minis- 
ters of God, and bound to condemn only those whom he 
himself condemns. 

In order, therefore, to act as the faithful dispensers of di- 
vine power in taking away human life, they are at liberty 
to decide only according to the depositions of witnesses and 

all other prescribed forms; after this they cannot in con- 

27 



210 PllOVINCIAL LETTERS. 

science pronounce sentence, but in conformity to the laws, 

nor adjudge any to death but whom the laws condemn 

And then, my Fathers, if the command of God requires 
them to deliver up these miserable men to punishment, the 
same command obliges them to take care of their guilty souls^ 
and it is because they are guilty that the greater attention 
should be manifested, so that they may not be abandoned 
to execution till the proper means have been used to impress 
their consciences. All this is very correct and very inno- 
cent; nevertheless, thechurcli entertains such an abhorrence 
of blood, that she considers those unworthy of ministering 
at her altars who have assisted in criminal adjudications, 
though attended with such religious observances; from which 
it is easy to conceive wiiat the church thinks of murder. 

Such is the proceeding o[ justice in disposing of the lives 
of men: let us now examine your method. In the new laws 
jfcou have promulgated, there is but one judge, and he is the 
offended person: in fact, he is party, judge, and executioner. 
He demands of himself the death of his enemy, appoints his 
punishment, and executes him on the spot; and, without any 
regard to the body or soul of his brother, he kills and damns 
him for whom Christ died; and all this to avoid a box on 
the ear, a reproach, or an offensive word, or other minor 
delinquences, for condemning which to the punishment of 
death, a judge, invested with legitimate authority, would 
be highly criminal; because the laws are far from so con- 
demning them. And finally to crowm these extravagances, 
you neither impute sin nor irregularity to those wiio com- 
mit murder in this manner without authority and contra- 
ry to the laws, even though perpetrated by religious per- 
sons and the priests themselves! Where are we now? Are 
these monks and priests who talk in this manner? Are they 
Christians? or, are they Turks? Are they men? or, are 
they demons? Are tliese the mysteries revealed to this Socie- ■ 
ty by the lamb, or are tliey abominations suggested by the 
dragon to those whoareof /tis party? 

What would you wish to be esteemed^ Fathers? Children 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 211 

of the Gospel or enemies of the Gospel? You must belong 
to one class or the other — there is no middle condition: *'he 
that is not with Christ is against him:" tliesc two descrip- 
tions divide mankind. There are, according to St. Augus- 
tin, two people and two worlds diffused over the earth — 
the world of the children of God, constituting a body of which 
Christ is chief and king; — and the world at enmity against 
God, of which the devil is chief and king. For this reason, 
Jesus Christ is called the king and God of the world; be- 
cause, in every part of it, he has his subjects and" worship- 
pers; and the devil is also denominated in Scripture, the 
prince of the powers of the air, and the god of this world, 
because he also has every wliere his supporters and slaves. 
Jesus Clirist has enacted such laws in liis church, which is 
his kingdom, as he has thought pro})er, according to his 
eternal wisdom; and the devil has enacted such laws in the 
world, which is his kingdom, as he Welshes to be establish- 
ed. Jesus Christ has made it honourable to suffer; the 
devil not to suffer. Jesus Christ has commanded those who 
receive a blow on one cheek to turn the other also; the devil 
would have them kill the persons who intend to inflict this 
injury. Jesus Christ pronounces them to be happy who 
partake of his ignominy; the devil declares such as endure 
shame to be miserable and accursed. Jesus Christ says, 
Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you; the de- 
vil says, **Woc to those of whom the world does not speak 
with esteem.'^ 

Now^, Fathers, to which of these kingdoms do you be- 
long? You have heard the language of the city of peace, 
called the mystical Jerusalem, and you have heard the lan- 
guage of the city of strife, in Scripture termed spiritual So- 
dom; which of these languages do you understand? Which 
of them do you speak? Those who belong to Christ are, as 
Paul expresses it, *^of one mind with him;" and those who 
are the children of the devil, ex patre diabolOf who was **a 
murderer from the beginning," follow the maxims of the 
devil according to the testimony of Christ. Let us hear 



212 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

the language of your school, ;;and enquire of your authors — 
if one is struck with a blow on the ear, is it right to endure 
it, or to kill the person who gave it; or, is it Ijiwful to kill a 
man in order to prevent such an affront? It is lawful, say 
Lessius, Molina, Escobar, Heginaldus, Filiutius, Baldel- 
lus, and other Jesuits, to kill the person who intends to give 
you a hox on the ear/ Is this the language of Jesus Christ? 
Again, is a man without honour who suffers a blow on the 
ear without killing the man who struck it? *'Is it not true,'* 
asks Escobar, ^*that whilst the person who has given you a 
box on the ear is suffered to live, he who has submitted to it 
is without honour?" True, Fathers — he is without that ho- 
nour which the devil has transmitted from his own proud spi- 
rit into that of his proud descendants. It is that honour which 
has always been idolized by men possessed of the spirit of 
the world. It is to preserve this kind of glory, of which 
the devil is the real dispenser, that mankind sacrifice their 
lives to the madness of duels, their honour to the disgrace 
of punishments to which they expose themselves, and their 
salvation to the danger of damnation, while they are depri- 
ved of Christian burial by the ecclesiastical canons. "We 
ought to praise God for bestowing upon the mind of the king 
a purer light than that of your theology. His edicts^ which 
are so severe upon this subject, do not make duelling crimi- 
nal; they only punish the crime inseparable from duels. 
Through the fear of his rigorous justice, he has deterred 
those who could not be influenced by the justice of God; and 
his piety has shown him that the honour of Christians con- 
sists in observing the commands of God, and the rules of 
Christianity; not in that phantom of honour which you rep- 
resent, frivolous as it is, as a legitimate apology for mur- 
der. Thus your murdering decisions are execrated by the 
whole world, and you had better be admonished to change 
your sentiments, if not from a religious principle, at least 
from a political motive. Prevent, Fathers, by a voluntary 
condemnation of these barbarous maxims, the sad effects so 
likely to result, and for which you must be responsible; 



PROVIXCTAL LETTERS. 2 IS 

and, to inspire you with the greater horror, remember that 
the first crime of depraved nature was a murder, commit- 
ted upon the person of the first righteous man; tliat the great- 
est crime of mankind wasthemurderof him who was the head 
of all the just, and that murder is the only crime which at 
once destroys the state, the church, nature, and piety. 

I have just been reading the reply of your apologist to 
my thirteenth letter. But if lie can give no better answer 
to this, which solves most of his difficulties, it will merit no 
reply. I pity him, when I see how he flies off from the sub- 
ject every moment, and levels his calumnious reproaches 
both against the living and the dead. But to gain credit 
to the notes with which you furnished him, you should not 
have made him disavow, in so public a manner, so notorious 
a circumstance as that of the box on the ear at Compeigne. 
It is certain, Fathers, from the acknowledgment of the of- 
fended party, that he received a blow on the cheek from the 
hand of a Jesuit, and all that could be accomplished by your 
friends, was to render it doubtful, whether it was given 
with the palm or with the back of tlie hand; and then, wheth- 
er a stroke upon the cheek with the back of^the hand ought 
to be called a box of the ear or not? 

I cannot tell whose office it may be to determine this puz- 
zling question, but lam of opinion it was at least sl proba- 
ble bpx on the ear. My conscience therefore is at ease. 



214 PROVINCIAL XETTEHS. 



LETTER XV. 

The Jesuits omit Calumny in their Catalogue of CrimeSf and 
make no Scruple of using it against their enemies- 



J^Tov. 25, 1656. 
Reverend Fathers, 
As your impostures are daily increasing, and you make use 
of them, to scandalize in so cruel a manner, all persons of 
piety who oppose your errors, I feel myself obliged, on 
this account and for the service of tJie church, to expose a 
part of your mysterious conduct, which I promised to do 
some time since, that it may be fully known from your own 
maxims, what reliance may be placed upon your accusations 
and injurious conduct. 

I am well a^are, that persons who are not sufficiently 
acquainted with you, feel it extremely difficult to come to 
any decision upon this subject, because they are necessita- 
ted either to believe those incredible crimes of which you 
accuse your enemies, or to deem you impostors, whi^h 
would seem equally incredible. If these tilings were un- 
true, say they, would a religious society publisli them — thus 
resisting the dictates of conscience, and giving themselves 
up, by such atrocious calamities, to damnation ? In this 
manner they reason; so that obvious and striking as are the 
proofs by which your falsities are exposed, yet, being so 
diametrically opposed to the opinion they cherish of your 
sincerity, they are held in suspense between the evidence 
of the truth which they cannot deny, and the duty of char- 
ity which they are apprehensive of violating. As, there- 
fore, the .only hinderance to their rejection of your scandal, 
is their respect for your character, if they should find that 



PBOVINCIAL LETTERS. 215 

you really do not entertain that bad opinion of calumny for 
which they give you credit, but think it to be no impediment 
to your salvation, no doubt the force of truth will immedi- 
ately determine them to disbelieve your impositions. You 
see, Fathers, the subject of the present letter. 

It is my purpose to advance a step further, than merely 
to show that your writings are replete with calumnious 
representations. Falsehoods may be stated under an im- 
pression that they are truths, but lying is characterized by 
the intention to deceive. I shall show, that you design to 
deceive and calumniate, and that you purposely impute 
crimes to your enemies, of which you know they are per- 
fectly innocent, because you believe it may be done without 
falling from a state of grace. And tliough you may be as 
well acquainted as myself with this point of your morality, 
I shall beg permission to state it, that no further doubt may 
exist, by showing that I challenge you personally and in- 
dividually on the subject, without even your being able to 
deny it with all your assurance, unless at the same time 
you own that for which I reproach you. For this is a doc- 
trine so common in your schools, that you have not only 
maintained it in your writings, but even in your public 
theses, whicli is an act of the utmost presumption; as, for 
example, in that of Louvain, in the year 1645, in the fol- 
lowing words: ''It is only a venial sin to calumniate and 
ruin the credit of such as speak evil of you, by accusing 
them of false crimes — quidni non nisi veniaUsit, detrahentis: 
autoritatem magnain tibi noxiam falso crimine elidere?'* 
This doctrine is so current amongst you, that whoever 
dares to attack it, you treat as an ignoramus and a stupid 
fellow. 

Not long ago, this took place in regard to Father Qui- 
roga, a German capuchin, who opposed this doctrine, and 
was immediately attacked by Father Dicastillus, who speaks 
of this dispute in these terms — de Just. 1. 2. tr. 2. disp. 12. 
n. 404: "A certain grave friar, barefooted and deep cowled 
• — cucullatuSf gijmnopoda — whose name I shall conceal, had 



216 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

the temerity to decry this opinion amongst some women 
and ignorant people, as pernicious and scandalous, contra- 
ry to good manners, subversive of the peace of states and 
societies, and opposed not only to all the Catholic doctors, 
but to all who may become so. But I have maintained 
against him, and still maintain, that calumny, when made 
use of against a calumniator, though it be a lie, yet is not a 
mortal sin, nor contrary to justice or charity; and, as a de- 
monstration of this, I furnished him with a crowd of our Fa- 
thers, and whole universities whom I consulted; among 
others, the reverend Father John Gans, confessor to the 
Emperor; the reverend Father Daniel Bastele, confessor to 
the archduke Leopold; Father Henry, who was the tutor of 
these two princes; all the public and ordinary professors 
of the university of Vienna (consisting entirely of Jesuits); 
all the professors of the university of Gratz (all Jesuits); 
all the professors of tlie university of Prague (of which the 
Jesuits are masters); from all of whom, I have in my pos- 
session, a written, signed, and sealed approbation of my 
opinion; in addition to which, I have Father Pennalossa, a 
Jesuit, preacher to the Emperor and the king of Spain; Fa- 
ther Pilliceroli, a Jesuit; and many others, who have all 
judged this opinion probable^ previous to our dispute." You 
see. Fathers, there are few opinions which you have taken 
so much pains to establish; and, in fact, there are few which 
are so serviceable to you. For this reason, you have im- 
pressed so much authority upon it, that your casuists have 
made use of it as an indubitable principle. ^*It is certain," 
says Caramuel, n. 1151., ^*it is a probable opinion, that it 
is no mortal sin to bring a false accusation for the sake of 
preserving one's honour: for it is maintained by upwards of 
twenty grave doctors, Gaspar Hurtado, Dicastillus, &c. 
Hence, if this doctrine be not probable, there is scarcely any 
one that is so in the whole system of divinity." 

O, what an execrable system is this, and how utterly cor- 
rupt in all its main points and principles — that if this doc- 
trine be not probable and safe in conscience, *Hhat a person 



PROVINCIAIi LETTERS. 217 

may be accused falsely in order to preserve one's honour," 
there is scarcely any one that is ! What can be more probable, 
Fathers, than that those who hold this principle, should 
sometimes put it in practice? The depraved passions of man- 
kind hurry them on with such impetuosity, that it is incon- 
ceivable, when all conscientious scruples are done away, how 
violently they proceed. For instance, Caramuel writes, 
in the same place, **This maxim of Father Dicastillus, the 
Jesuit, respecting calumny, was taught by a German coun- 
tess to the daughter of the Empress, who, believing that ca- 
lumnies were but venial sins, spread abroad so many scan- 
dals and false reports every day, that the wliole court was 
put into a state of fef^ment and alarm. It is easy to perceive 
the use they made of it,* so that, to quiet this tumult, it was 
found necessary to apply to a good Father, a capuchin, 
named Quiroga, of exemplary conduct (which was the rea- 
son Father Dicastillus liad such a quarrel with him), who 
told them plainly, that this maxim was very pernicious, 
especially as held by women, and then took such especial 
care, that the Empress totally abolished the practice of it." 
It is by no means surprising that this doctrine should 
have produced some bad effects: it w^ould have been more 
so had it been otherwise. Self-love is always ready to per- 
suade us that an attack made upon ourselves is unjust; much 
more you. Fathers, who are so blinded by vanity, that you 
would make all the w orld believe, from your writings, that 
an injury attempted against your WTitiugs, is an injury 
done to the honour of the Church; and thus it would be 
strange, if you were not to put this maxim in practice. "We 
must not say, as those who do not know you do — how is it 
these good Fathers calumniate their enemies, since it is en- 
dangering their own salvation? but we must say, on the 
contrary — how is it these good Fathers would lose any op- 
portunity of decrying their enemies, when they can do it 
without risking their own safety ? Let us tlien no longer be 
astonished at finding the Jesuits calumniators: they are so 
with a safe conscience, and cannot be otherwise; since, by 
28 



218 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

the credit they have acquired in the world, they may revile 
others without any apprehension from tlie justice of men, 
and by that which they have acquired in cases of conscience, 
they have established maxims, by which they are empowered 
to do as they choose, without dreading the justice of God. 

Such, Fathers, is the origin of so many base impostures. 
From this source, your Father Brisacier drew, till he 
hrought upon himself the censure oftlie archbishop of Paris. 
It was this which led your Father d'Anjou, openly in the 
pulpit of the Church of St. Benedict at Paris, on the eighth 
of March, 1655, to decry those persons of quality who re- 
ceived the subscriptions for the pooi^ of Picardy and Cham- 
pagne, to which they had so liberally contributed them- 
selves; and to declare (which was a hoiM-iblc falsehood, and 
enough to have destroyed all charity, had your impostures 
obtained any kind of credit), *'that he knew for certain 
that these persons had misapplied this money, to employ it 
against the church and state;" which obliged the curate of 
the parish, a doctor of the Sorbonne, to preach next day, 
for the express purpose of confuting these calumnious repre- 
sentations. Your Father Crasset, upon the same princi- 
ple, published from the pulpit so many impostures in Or- 
leans, which rendered it necessary for the bishop to inter- 
dict him as a public impostor, by a mandate of the ninth of 
September last, in which he declares, **that he prohibits 
brother John Crasset, priest of the society of Jesus, from 
preaching in his diocese; and all the people from hearing 
him, under pain of being guilty of a mortal disobedience; 
he having been apprised that the said Crasset had delivered 
a discourse from the pulpit, full of falsehoods and calum- 
nies against the clergy of that city, falsely and maliciously 
charging them with maintaining such heretical propositions 
as these — that it is impossible to keep the commandments 
of God — that internal grace is irresistible — and that Christ 
did not die for all men, with others of a similar nature, 
condemned by Innocent X," This, Fathers, is your or- 
dinary imposture^ and the first with which you attack those 



PROVINCIAL liETTEllS. 219 

whom you deem it important to decry. And though it be 
as impossible to prove your charges, as it is for Father 
Crasset to substantiate his against the clergy of Orleans, 
your conscience is quite easy, ^'because you believe that 
this mode of detraction is so certainly allowable," that you 
are not afraid to declare it openly in tlie face of a whole city. 
A remarkable instance of this occurred in your disagree- 
ment with M. Piiys, a clergyman of St. Nisier, at Lyons; 
and, as this affair furnishes a complete illustration of your 
spirit, I shall relate the principal circumstances. You 
know, Fathers, that in 1649, M. Puys translated an ex- 
cellent work, written by another capuchin, into French, 
**0n the duty of Christians to their own parishes, against 
those wiio wished to entice them away," — without using 
any invectives, and without either pointing at any religious 
order or individual. Your Fathers, however, took it to 
themselves, and paying no respect to an aged pastor, a 
judge in the primacy of France, and much honoured by the 
whole city, your Father Alby wrote a violent philippic 
against him, which you yourselves sold in your own church 
on Assumption-day; in which, amongst other charges, he 
was accused of "becoming scandalous by his gallantries, of 
being suspected of impiety, of being a heretic, an excom- 
municated person, and deserving to be burned alive." To 
this M. Puys replied; but Father Alby, in a second publi- 
cation, persisted in his former criminations. Is it not then 
evident. Fathers, either that you must be calumniators, or 
that you believed all the charges brought against the good 
priest; and therefore that it was needful that you should 
have seen him fully exculpated before you deemed him wor- 
thy of your friendship? Attend now to what passed at the 
reconciliation, in presence of a great multitude of the most 
distinguished persons of the city, whose names are inserted 
below, in the order in which they were placed in the paper 
drawn up on the £5th of September, 1650.=^ In the pre- 

* M. de Ville, Vicar-General of the cardinal de Lyon^ Mr. Scarron, 
canon and minister of St. Paul's; M. Margat, chanter; Messrs. Bouvaud, 



£20 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

sence of this assembly, M. Pays made no other declaration 
than the following: *'that what he had written was not in- 
tended for the Jesuits — that he had spoken in general 
against those who seduce the faithful from their parishes, 
without at all meaning to attack their society, for which, on 
the contrary, he cherished ahigli regard.*' This is in itself 
sufficient with regard to his apostacy, his revilings, and his 
excommunication, without any recantation or absolution. 
Father Alby afterwards addressed him in these words: 
"Sir, my conviction that you attacked the society to which 
I have the honour to belong, induced me to take up my pen 
to answer you, and I thought my manner of doing it was 
allowable; but having become better acquainted with your 
intention, I now declare, that there exists nothing which 
can prevent my esteeming you as a person of a very enlight- 
ened undei'standing, of a profound and orthodox faith, of 
irreproachable morals, and in one word, a worthy pastor of 
your church. This declaration I make with high satisfac- 
tion, and beg these gentlemen to remember it." 

In truth, Fathers, these gentlemen remember it perfectly 
well, and were more offended at your reconciliation than 
at your quarrel. For who does not admire Father Alby's 
speech? He does not say that he retracts on account of 
discovering M. Puys has changed his behaviour and his 
doctrine, but merely "because he found that it was not his 
intention to attack your society, so that there is nothing to 
prevent him from being a good Catholic." He did not 
therefore believe him to be a heretic at all; nevertheless, 
after accusing him of it, contrary to his own convictions, 
he does not acknowledge his error, but dares, on the con- 

Seve, Aubert, and Dervieu, canons of St. Nisier; M. du Gue, president of 
the treasurers of France; M. Groslier, provost of the merchants; M. de 
Flechere, president and Lieutenant-General; Messrs. de Boissat, de St. 
Roniain, and de Bartoly, gentlemen: M. Burgeois, king's chief advocate in 
the treasury office of France; Messrs. de Cotton, father and son; M. Bo- 
niel; who all signed the original declaration with M. Puys and Father 
Alby. 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 221 

trary, to affirm, ^Hhat lie believes the manner in which he 
used him was allowable." 

My good Fathers, what can you be thinking about, thus 
publicly to show that you only measure the faith and vir- 
tue of mankind by their opinions of your society? How 
came it to pass, that you w ere apprehensive of making peo- 
ple believe, by your own confession, that you were impostors 
and calumniators? What! shall the very same individual, 
and without any change in himself, but merely as he hon- 
ours or opposes your society, be **pious or impious, blame- 
less or deserving excommunication, a worthy pastor of the 
church or fit only to be burned, in one word, a Catholic or 
a heretic?" To oppose your society and to be a heretic 
are, then, in your language the same thing! A pretty kind 
of heresy indeed ! So then, whenever one sees in your 
writings, so many good Catholics called heretics, the 
meaning is, that *'you believe them to be inimical to you," 
It is desirable to be initiated into this language, conforma- 
bly to which, I am, for my part, a terrible heretic; and this 
is the sense in which you dignify me with this appelation. 
You have no reason for excommunicating me from the 
church, excepting that you believe ray letters are adverse 
to your interests; and thus the only metliod left of becom- 
ing a good Catholic is, either to approve of your extrava- 
gant system of morality, which I can never do without re- 
nouncing every principle of religion, or to persuade you 
that I have no other design than that of promoting your real 
interest; and if you admit this, you will be w^onderfully re- 
covered from your strange infatuation. But I find myself 
inevitably involved in heresy; for the purity of my faith 
being incapable of rescuing me from this error, I shall ne- 
ver be free from it, without either betraying my conscience 
or reforming yours, till which time I shall always remain a 
wicked monster and impostor; for, however correctly I 
have quoted your autliors, you will continue to exclaim, 
'Hhat he must be an agent of the devil to charge you with 
things of which there does not exist the slightest mark or 



222 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

intimation in all your writings;" and yet there would be 
nothing in this but what would perfectly accord with your 
maxims and usual practices: so great and extended is the 
privilege you enjoy of lying. Allow me to produce a spe- 
cimen, chosen on purpose, because it will furnish an answer 
at the same time to your ninth imposture, which only mer- 
its a transcient notice and refutation. 

About ten or twelve years ago, you were reproached with 
this maxim of Father Bauny, ^'that it is allowable to seek 
directly, primo etper se, the next opportunity of committing 
simony for the spiritual or temporal advantage of ourselves 
or our neighbour," tr. 4. q. 14. Of this he adduces the fol- 
lowing exemplification — *'It is lawful for any one to go in- 
to public places of ill-fame, in order to convert prostitutes, 
though it be not improbable the individual may fall into sin 
from various experiments which he has already made, hav- 
ing been seduced by their caresses." What reply did Fa- 
ther Caussin offer to this, in 1644, in his apology for tlie 
Society of Jesuits, p. 128? — Look at the passage in Father 
Bauny, read the page, the marginal references, what pre- 
cedes and what follows; study, indeed, the whole work, and 
you will not discover the least trace of such a sentence, and 
it could never enter into the mind of any man, whose con- 
science was not totally depraved; nor could any one have 
imagined it, who was not, in fact, an agent of the devil." 
Your Father Pintereau speaks in the same style, part I. p. 
24: **A man must be lost indeed to all conscience, to teach 
such a detestable doctrine; but, w^hoever attributes it to Fa- 
ther Bauny, must be worse than a devil. Reader, be assu- 
red there is not the least mark or indication of it in his 
whole book." Who would not believe, but that the people 
w^ho talk at this rate, had a just ground of complaint, and 
that Father Bauny had been misrepresented? Was ever 
any thing expressed in stronger terms? How can any per- 
son dare to imagine that a passage can be found in the very 
place, and in the very words referred to, when it is affirmed, 
that **there is not the least mark of indication of it in the 
whole book?" 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 22S 

Unquestionably, Fathers, this is the true way of gaining 
credit, till an answer appears; but it is also the way uever 
to be believed again, as soon as the answer is published. — 
For it is so evident that you told falsehoods at that time, 
that in your answers, you now confess without any hesita- 
tion, that this said maxim is not only to be found in Father 
Bauny in the very place whence it was cited, but what seems 
most worthy of admiration, what was detestable twelve 
years ago, is now so innocent, that in your ninth imposture, 
p. 10, you absolutely accuse me of * 'ignorance and malice, 
for quarrelling with Father Bauny, respecting an opinion 
which was never rejected in the schools." What an ad- 
vantage it is to have to do with people who talk pro and 
con/ I have no need of any other auxiliaries, for you confute 
yourselves! It is only necessary to show^ two things — 
that this maxim i4 a bad one — then, that it is the maxim 
of Father Bauny; both of which I shall prove from your 
own confession. In the year 1644, you allowed it to be de- 
testable, and in 1656 you admit it as Father Bauny's. This 
double acknowledgment is quite sufficient for my justifica- 
tion; but it goes further — it discovers the spirit of your 
politics. Let me ask what end you propose in your w ri- 
tings? Is it to state your sentiments with sincerity? No, 
certainly, because your answers are self-contradictory.— 
Is it to establish the true faith? But this is so little the 
case, that you authorize a maxim, which, according to your 
own admission, is detestable. But remark, that when you 
said this maxim was detestable, you, at the same time, de- 
nied that it was Father Bauny's, and so he w^as innocent; 
and when afterwards you allow it to be his, you maintain 
it is a good one — so he is innocent still! This Father's in- 
nocence then being the only thing in common to both your 
replies, it is obviously your sole aim; the object being to 
defend your authors, by saying of the same identical max- 
im, it is or it is not in your books — it is good or it is bad, 
not according to its conformity to truth, which is immuta- 
ble, but to your interest, which changes every moment. — 



S24 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

What can I say after this, which is absolutely demonstra- 
tive? and yet this is your common method of proceeding 
every day, and, omitting an infinity of other examples, you 
will, I dare say, deem it enough to produce one more. 

You have been censured on various occasions for another 
proposition of Father Bauny, tr. 4. quest. 22. p. 100: <*Ab- 
solution ought not to be denied or deferred to those who 
live in the habit of transgressing the laws of God, of na- 
ture, and of the church, though there should be wo hopes of 
amendment — etsi emendationis futurae spes nulla appareat^' 
I beg to know who has furnished, in your view, the best 
answer to this; your Father Pintereau, or your Father 
Brisacier, who justify Father Bauny in both your peculiar 
methods of defence: the one condemning this proposition, but 
denying it to be Father Bauny's; the other admitting it to 
be his, but at the same time vindicating it? Pray, listen — 
Father Pintereau asks, p. 18, <<What is it to break all the 
bounds of modesty and to outface impudence itself, if it be 
not to impute to Father Bauny this damnable doctrine, as 
universally admitted to be his? Judge then, reader, of the 
vileness of this calumny, and see with what kind of people 
the Jesuits have to do; then say, whether the author of such 
an atrocious falsehood ought not henceforward to be deem- 
ed the interpreter of the father of lies?" Now attend to 
Father Brisacier, part 6. p. 21: <*It is true Father Bauny 
says what you have related" — (this, by the way, is giving 
Father Pintereau the lie direct) — **but if you, who con- 
demn this, wait, when a penitent is at your feet, till his 
guardian angel pawns all his title to heaven for the indi- 
vidual's goodness, or till the eternal God swears by himself 
that David lied, when he said by the Holy Spirit, that *A11 
men are liars,' deceitful and frail; and that this penitent is 
not a greater liar, more frail, or fickle, or sinful than oth- 
ers — you could never apply the blood of Jesus Christ to any 
one." 

What think you, Fathers, of these extravagant and im- 
pious expressions, importing, that to wait till there is some 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS, 225 

hope of amciulmcnt previous to giving absolution, is the 
same as waiting till the eternal God swears by himself, 
tliat a sinner sliall fall no more? \Vhat, is there no differ- 
ence between hope and certainty? How reproachful is it to 
the grace of Jesus Christ to say, there is so little possibili- 
ty that Christians should abandon their sins against the 
law of God, against nature, and against the church, as to 
render it quite hopeless, unless the Hohj Spirit he a liar: so 
that, in your view, if absolution be not given to those whose 
amendment is not to le expected, the blood of Jesus Christ 
would be useless, and could never be applied to any one. 
To what a condition. Fathers, has your immoderate desire 
of maintaining the glory of your authors, reduced you ! — • 
for you can discover only two methods of justifying them, 
imposture or impiety; and the most innocent of the two seems 
to be boldly to disavow the most evident facts, which is the 
reason you so frequently adopt this plan. 

This is not all: you forge writings expressly to render 
your enemies odious; as, for instance, the ^^Letter from a 
Minister to Mr. Arnauld," which you dispersed in every 
direction throughout Paris, to impress the idea that the book 
of "Frequent Communion," approved by so many bishops 
and divines, (which was, in fact, however, a little contrary 
to your opinions,) was written by some secret understand- 
ing with the ministers of Charenton. At other times, you 
attribute to your adversaries writings full of impiety, as 
the **Circular Letter of the Jansenists," whose impertinent 
style evinces the grossness of the deception, and shows but 
too clearly the ridiculous malice of yOur Father Meineir, 
who had the audacity to make use of it, p. 28, to support 
the blackest of his misrepresentations. Sometimes you 
cite books which never existed, as <*The Constitutions of 
the Holy Sacrament," whence you produce passages which 
you have chosen to fabricate, and such as would make any 
man's hair stand on end, who was ignorant of your effron- 
tery in inventing and circulating falsehoods. In truth, 

there is not a single species of calumny which vou have 
29 



226 PROVIJfCIAL LETTERS. 

not adopted, and certainly the maxim which excuses it, 
could never have heen in hotter* hands. 

These representations, however, are too easily refuted, 
on which account you avail yourselves of otliers, of a more 
subtle nature, in which you take care to avoid particulari- 
zing, in order to remove all possibility of being detected and 
answered^ as, when Father Brisacier says, ^*that his ene- 
mies perpetrate horrible crimes, but they will not do to be 
named." Does it not seem impossible to convict such an 
indefinite accusation as this? A certain clever fellow, how- 
ever, has found out this secret; and who do you think it is? 
— A cajmchinl You are really, my good Fathers, you are 
really unfortunate in your capuchins, and I foresee you will, 
some time or other, be as unlucky in Benedictines. This 
capuchin is called Father Valerian, of the house of the 
Counts de Magnis. You shall see, by this little history, 
in what manner he answered your calumnies. He had hap- 
pily succeeded in converting prince Ernest, landgrave of 
Hesse-Rheinsfeit; but your Fathers, as if sorry for ihe con- 
version of a sovereign prince, without their assistance, in- 
''stantly wrote a book against him (for you uniformly perse- 
cute good people every where), and, falsifying one of the 
cApuchin's passages, accused him of Ae?'eiicaHoctrine: pub- 
lishing morever, a letter against him, in which they said, 
''0, how many things could we discover against you (with- 
out a syllable of what things), and how would they torment 
you ! For if you do not behave better, we shall be under 
the necessity of reporting you to the Pope and Cardinals." 
This is no bad device, and I doubt not, Fathers, but you 
tell them the same things of me. Now, observe his answer 
in his book printed at Prague last year, p. llSetseq. — 
^'What shall I do against those vague and indefinite slan- 
ders? How shall I refute what is not explained? — There 
is one method, and I declare loudly and publicly to those 
who threaten me, that they are the most notorious impos- 
tors, the most artful and impudent liars, if they do not pub- 
lish these crimes to the whole world. Come forward, then, 



PROTINCIAL lETTERI. 2*7" 

all ye, mine accusers, and proclaim those things upon the 
house-tops, which hitherto you have only whispered, and 
by this secresy you have told falsehoods with the greater 
boldness. Some people regard these disputes as scanda- 
lous; and truly it is an infamous scandal to impute to me 
such a crime as heresy, and thus make me suspected of ma- 
ny others. But the only remedy I propose for this scan- 
dal is to maintain my innocence." 

Really, Fathers, you seem to be sadly off, for surely never 
was a man more completely justified. You cannot possi- 
bly produce the least shadow of a crime against him, since 
you have not answered such a challenge. Really you have 
some troublesome affairs to manage, but you do not seem to 
become any wiser; for some time afterwards you attacked 
him again in a similar manner upon another subject; and he 
makes the same kind of defence, p. 151, in the following 
words: **These people, who are insupportable to all Chris- 
tendom, aspire, under pretence of good works, to greatness 
and domination, by perverting almost all laws, divine, hu- 
man, positive, and natural, to answer their own designs. 
They engage on their side, either by their doctrine or by 
fear or hope, all the great of the earth, and then abuse their 
authority to promote their own detestable intrigues. But 
their schemes, however criminal tliey may be, are neither 
punished nor checked: on the contrary, they are rewarded, 
and they proceed with the same confidence as if they Avere 
serving God. This is known to all the world, and all the 
world speaks of it in terms of execration; but few are able 
to oppose this powerful tyranny. I have, notwithstanding, 
ventured to do so. Already I have succeeded in putting a 
stop to their insolence, and I shall do it again in the same 
manner. I affirm then, most unhesitatingly, that they are 
most impudent liars — inentiris impudentissime. If their 
accusations against me be true, let them be proved, or let 
these accusers stand convicted of impudent falsehood. After 
tliis, it will be seen who is in the right. I beg of every 
body to mark their proceedings, and to observe liow these 



2£8 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

people, who cannot endure the least affront without resent- 
ing it to the utmost of their power, will, in appearance, 
suffer very patiently those which they have it not in their 
power to revenge, and cover their real impotence under the 
veil of pretended virtue. It is for this reason I have used 
the more vigorous endeavours to provoke their modesty, 
that the most illiterate may acknowledge, if they should 
remain silent, their patience will not result from meekness, 
but from a troubled and guilty conscience.'* 

So says the capuchin, and concludes thus: — ^'These men, 
whose history is so well known to the whole world, are 
notoriously wicked, and so insolent, in consequence of the 
impunity they enjoy, that I must have renounced Jesus 
Christ and his church, if I had not, thus publicly too, ex- 
pressed my detestation of their conduct, both for my own 
vindication, and to prevent the seduction of the simple- 
hearted." 

My reverend Fathers, you have no way of retreat left: 
you must be set down as convicted slanderers, and have 
only to recur to your maxim, that this species of calumny 
is not criminal. This capuchin has discovered the secret 
of shutting your mouths; and this is the only method when- 
ever you bring forward accusations unsustained by evi- 
dence. The best answer we can give you is that of the 
capuchin Father — mentiris impudentissime. What other 
reply can be given, for instance, to Father Brisacier, when 
he says of his opponents, <^They are the gates of hell, the 
high-priests of the devil, people destitute of faith, hope, 
and charity, wiio build up the treasury of antichrist; which,'* 
he adds, "I do not say to injure them, but as compelled to 
it by the force of truth." It would be a curious kind of 
employment for any person to set about proving, "that he 
is not the gates of hell, and does not build up the treasury 
of antichrist!" 

What other answer, again, could be given to all the idle 
nonsense of the same kind to be found in your writings and 
advertisements about my letters? For instance — .<^that 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 229 

some appropriate to themselves the produce of restitutions, 
and thus reduce creditors to beggary — that bags of money 
have been offered to certain learned monks who have refused 
them — that benefices have been bestowed in order to sow 
heresies in opposition to the faith — that some pensioners 
are among the most dignified ecclesiastics and in sovereign 
courts; and that I myself am a pensioner of Port-Royal, 
and wrote romances before I composed my letters? — I 
write romances! — I, who never read one in my life — and 
do not even know the names of those written by your apolo- 
gist!! — What is to be said to all this, Fathers, but — meiitiris 
impndentissime; — unless you will point out the individuals 
—their words — time and place. Either be silent, or relate 
and prove all the circumstances, as I have done in my 
stories of Father Alby and John d'Alba; otherwise you can 
hurt nobody but yourselves . Your fables, perhaps, might 
have obtained some credit before the world knew your prin- 
ciples; but these being now disclosed, w hen you endeavour to 
whisper about — *'a person of honour, who would not have 
his name mentioned, told you most terrible things of such 
and such people," — you will be instantly reminded of the 
mentiris impudentissime of the good Father capuchin. 
You have already imposed upon mankind too long, and 
abused the credit which has been given to your mis-state- 
ments. It is time to restore the reputation of so many 
slandered individuals. For what innocence can be so uni- 
versally known as not to suffer some stain from the bold 
calumnies of a society, which has extended itself through 
the whole world, and which, under the garb of religion, 
conceals souls so totally destitute of it, as to perpetrate a 
crime like slander, not only without opposing, but in direct 
conformity and subservience to their own avowed doctrines. 
I shall not, surely, be blamed for destroying the confidence 
which has been reposed in you, since it is far more just to 
preserve for so many persons whom you have decried, that 
reputation for piety, which they ouglit indeed never to have 
forfeited, than to leave you a reputation for sincerity which 



230 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

you never deserved to possess. And, as one cannot be'done 
without the other, how important is it to exhibit to the 
world your real character! I have made a beginning, but 
it will require some further time and labour to complete the 
design. It shall, however, be done; nor will all your policy, 
Fathers, screen you from it: since, all the efforts you make 
to hinder it, will only serve to prove, even to persons of 
the smallest discernment, that you are in a state of alarm; 
and that your own consciences reproaching you with what 
I have yet to state, you have used every possible means to 
prevent the full disclosure. 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 231 



LETTER XYI. 

The horrible Calumnies of the Jesuits against pious Eccle- 
siastics and holy Monks. 

Dec, 4, 1656. 
Reverend Fathers, 
I NOW propose to proceed to the rest of your calumnies, and 
shall, in the first place, answer what relates to youv adver- 
tisements. But as all your other puhlications are equally 
full of them, I shall have an ample supply of matter to en- 
tertain you as long as I think proper. 

As to what relates to the fiction to the prejudice of the 
bishop of Ypres, which is repeated in all your writings, I 
will affirm, in a word, that you maliciously abuse some 
ambiguous expressions in one of his letters, which, being 
capable of a good sense, ought to be so understood, accord- 
ing to the charitable spirit of the church, and cannot be ta- 
ken otherwise, but in conformity to the spirit of your Socie- 
ty. Why, w^hen addressing a friend — ''Do not trouble your- 
self so much about your nephew, I will undertake to supply 
him with whatever money is necessary, from what I have 
in hand;" — why should you interpret this language as if he 
meant to take that money without any intention of return- 
ing it, and not that he simply designed to advance a sum 
which was afterwards to be replaced? It was not necessa- 
ry, however, to be guilty of such an imprudence as to con- 
vict yourselves of falsehood by other letters of the bishop 
of Ypres, which you have published, clearly proving that 
what he expended, was in fact only money in advance, to be 
afterwards reimbursed. This appears from the letter dated 
July 30th, 1619, which contains these words: "Do not 



232 PKOVINCIAL jLETTERS. 

trouble yourself about the money in advance; he shall want 
for nothing during his continuance here." and from that of 
Jan. 6, i626, in which he says, '*You are too urgent; and 
whenever the account is required, the little credit I have 
in this place, w ill, I dare say, be sufficient to find the money, 
when necessary." 

You are as great impostors, then, on this subject, as re- 
specting your ridiculous story about the poor's box of St. 
Merri: for, pray, what advantage have you derived from 
the accusation preferred against the clergyman whom you 
wished to ruin, by one of your beloved friends? Are we 
to infer that a man is guilty because he is accused? Surely 
not. Persons of his exemplary piety may be always ac- 
cused, while the world contains such calumniators as you. 
He is not to be judged of from his accusation, but from his 
verdict; and the sentence pronounced on the twenty -third 
of February, 1656, was a complete justification: and, more- 
over, the very person who rashly engaged in this iniquitous 
suit, was disowned by his colleagues, and absolutely obli- 
ged to retract his charge. As to your statement, in the 
same place, respecting a '^famous director, who enriched 
himself in a moment to the amount of 900,000 livres," it is 
sufficient to refer you to the clergymen of St. Roch and St. 
Paul, who can testify to all Paris his perfect disinterested- 
ness in this affair, and your inexcusable malice. 

But these falsities are comparatively trifling — only, in 
fact, the attempts of your novices, and nothing to the grand 
performances of your professors. I come, then, to one of 
the blackest calumnies that ever entered into the human 
mind; I refer to the insufferable audacity of imputing to 
holy nuns and their directors a disbelief of the mystery of 
Transubstantiation, and the real presence of Christ in the 
Eucharist. This is worthy of you. Fathers. This is a 
crime which God only can punish, and you only could com- 
mit. One need be as humble as those humble and aspersed 
women themselves, to endure this with patience; and as wick- 
ed as their wicked calumniators, to believe it. I do not, there- 



PROVIXCIAL LETTERS. 233 

fore, undertake to vindicate tliem, for tlicy are not even 
suspected. If tliey had any need of advocates, they would 
soon find better than I pretend to be. What I have to say 
\vill not be for tlie purpose of sliowing their innocence, but 
displaying your malice. I wish to make you ahhor your- 
selves, and to convince the world that you are capable of 
any thing. 

You will not fail to assert, notwithstanding all this, that 
I belong to Port-Royal, which is the first thing you have to 
say against your opponents, as if nobody could be found, 
but at Port-Royal, w ith sufficient zeal to defend the purity 
of the Christian system against your mis-statements. I 
know the merit of those pious recluses who have retired into 
solitude, and how much the church is indebted to their edi- 
fying and valuable works. I know their piety and w isdom; 
for though I was never settled amongst them, as you rep- 
i-esent w ithout any sort of idea w lio I really am, I am ac- 
quainted with «o?ne of their community, and admire the vir- 
tue of all of tliem. But God has not included in their 
number all whom he will employ in opposition to your 
irregularities: 1 hope, by his aid, to convince you of this: 
and if he bestow his grace to enable me to accomplish my 
design of employing all the talents he has given me in his 
service, I shall speak in such a manner as will, perhaps, 
excite in you some regret that you Iiave not to encounter a 
Port-Royal man. And, Fathers, to prove my meaning, 
while those w horn you have so much and so calumniously 
misrepresented are contenting themselves with offering up to 
God their ardent intercessions for your forgiveness, I who 
am not personally implicated in your calumny, feel myself 
under the necessity of making you ashamed of it before the 
Avhole cliurch, in order to produce that salutary confusion 
mentioned in Scripture, which is almost the only remedy 
for such insensibility as yours: *'Fill their faces with shame, 
that they may seek thy name, Lord — Iinple fades eorum 
ignominid, ut quserant nomen tuning Domine.'^ 

It is necessary liowever, to silence this insolence, which 
30 




234 PKOVINCIATi LETTERS. 

violates the most sacred places: for who can be safe after 
such atrocious calinnnies? What! to proclaim publicly in 
Paris there is a book so scandalojis, with the name of your 
Father Meinier prefixed to it, and with this infamous title, 
^'Port-Royal and Geneva in concert against the most holy 
Sacrament of the Altar:" in which you accuse of this apos- 
tasy not only M. de St. Cyran and M. Arnauld, but also 
Mother Agnes his sister, and all the nuns of that monastery; 
of whom you say, p. 96, "that their faith is as suspicious 
with regard to the Eucharist as that of M. Arnauld, whom, 
in page 4, you maintain to be an "absolute Calvinist!" I 
appeal to all the world, if, in the whole church, there be 
any persons against whom you could bring so serious a 
charge witli so little propriety: for if these nuns and their 
directors act in concert with Geneva against the most holy 
sacrament of the altar, which is horrible to think of, tell 
me how they came to take for tlie principal object of their 
devotions the very sacrament which they so abominate? — 
Why add to their rule the institution of the holy sacrament? 
Why take the habit of the holy sacrament? Why take the 
name of the nuns of the holy sacrament? Why call their 
church the church of the holy sacrament? Why solicit and 
obtain from Rome the confirmation of this institution, and 
the privilege of repeating every Thursday the office of the 
holy sacrament, in wliich the faith of the church is so fully 
expressed, if they had conspired with Geneva to abolish 
thf^t faith? Wliy should they have obliged themselves by a 
particular devotion, approved also by the pope, constantly 
niglitand day to have nuns standing before the sacred host, to 
atone, bv their incessant adorations of this perpetual sacri- 
fice, for the wickedness of that heresy which aims to anni- 
hilate it? Tell me, Fathers, if you can, why, of all the 
mysteries of our religion, they should renounce those which 
they believe, to choose those which they do not believe? and 
why should they devote themselves so entirely to that mys- 
tery of our faith, if they consider it, as heretics do, as the 
myslo! y of iniquity? Wliat answer can you give, Fathers, 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 255 

to these evidences, which consist not of words only, but 
actions; and not of some occasional actions only, but of a 
whole course of life entirely consecrated to the adoration of 
Jesus Christ, residing upon our altars? What reply can 
you give to those books which you impute to Port-Royal, 
and which abound with the most precise terms made use of 
by the Fathers and councils to express the escence of this 
mystery? It is at once ridiculous and shocking to see how 
you answer this in your libel: ''M. Arnauld," you say, 
**speaks well upon the subject of transubsfantlation, but 
perhaps he means a figurative transuhstantiation.^^ He 
pretends, indeed, to believe in the real presence^ but who 
has informed us that he understands it of a true and real 
figure? Where are we arrived now, good Fathers, and 
who is there you could not exhibit to the world as a Cal- 
vinist whenever you chose, if it be allowable to pervert the 
most canonical and pious expressions, by the malignant 
subtleties of your new equi vocals? Who ever used any 
other terms than these, especially in plain discourses upon 
religion, where controversy is out of the question? And yet 
the affection and respect they cherish for this sacred mys- 
tery has so pervaded their writings, that I defy you, with 
all your artifice, to discover the least trace of ambiguity, 
or the least coincidence with the Genevan creed. 

Every body knows perfectly well that the heresy of Ge- 
neva essentially consists, as you yourselves state, in believ- 
ing that Jesus Christ is not contained in^ this sacrament — 
that it is impossible he should be in a variety of places at 
the same moment — that he is really nowhere but in heaven, 
and there only he ought to be adored, not upon the altar — 
that the substance of the bread remains — that the body of 
Christ neither enters into the mouth nor into the stomach — 
that he is only eaten by faith, and consequently the wicked 
do not eat him at all — and that the mass is not a sacri- 
fice, but an abomination. Let us see, then, how far the 
writings of Port-Royal and Geneva agree: and you will 
find to your confusion, 'Hhat the flesh and blood of Jesus, 



S36 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

Christ are coutaincd in tlie species of bread and wine/' 
Mr. Arnauld's second letter, p. 259 — ^'that the Holy of 
holies is present in the sanctuary, and ought to be adored 
tliere," ibid. p. 243 — ''that Jesus Christ dwells in sinners, 
who communicate by the true and real presence of his body 
in their stomach, though he be not by the presence of his 
spirit in their heart," Freq. Com. part iii. ch. 16 — "that 
the dead and mouldered bodies of the saints derive tlieir 
chief dignity from that seed of life which remains in them 
from touching the immortal and life-giving flesh of Jesus 
Christ," part i. ch. 40— "that it does not arise from any 
natural power, but from the omnipotence of God, to which 
nothing is impossible, that the body of Jesus Christ is con- 
tained in the host, and in the least particle of every host," 
Theolog. Fam- lee. 15 — "that the divine vii'tue is present 
to produce the effect which the words of consecration sig- 
nify," itirf. — that Jesus Christ, who is abased and laid up- 
on the altar, is at the same time elevated in his glorj' — ► 
that he is by himself and by his usual power in a variety of 
places at the same time, in the midst of the church trium- 
phant, and in the midst of the church militant, and sojourn- 
ing," On suspension, reason 21 — "that the sacramental 
species remain suspended and subsist in an extraordinary 
manner, without being sustained by any subject, and that 
the body of Jesus Christ is ajso suspended under the spe- 
cies, but does not depend upon them as substances depend 
upon accidents," i&ii/. 23 — ''thattlie substance of the bread 
is changed, the accilcnts remaining immutable" — In the 
repose hours of the blessed sacrament, "that Jesus Christ 
reposes in the Eucharist with tlie same glory which he has 
in heaven," Letters of Mr. de St. Cijran, i. i. let. 93 — 
*'that liis glorious humanity resides in the tabernacles of thft 
Chui'ch, under the species of bread which visibly cover it; 
and know ing our gross conceptions, he thus leads us to the 
adoration of his divinity, present in all places, by tbat of 
bis humanity, which is only present in one particular 
place," ibid — 'that we receive the bodv of Jesus Christ 



FROVIiNCIAL LETTERS. Z3T 

ujion the tongue, which he sanctifies hy his ili\ine touch," 
Let. 32 — *Hhat he enters into the mouth of the priest," 
Let. 72 — "that though Jesus Christ, through his amazing 
love and mercy, hccomes accessihle in tlie holy sacrament, 
still he retains his inaccessible nature therein, as an insep- 
arable condition ofhis divinity; because though there be only 
the body and blood, by virtue of the words — vi verhorum, as 
the schools say — yet this does not prevent his w hole divini- 
ty, as well as his whole humanity, being unitedly present," 
Defence of the Chaplet of ike Jluiy Sacrament^ p. 217 — *'that 
the Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice, TheoL 
Fam. Icct. 15 — *'and though this sacrifice be commemora- 
tive of that of the cross, there exists this difference, that 
the mass is offei-ed only for the church and for believers in 
her communion, but the sacrifice of the cross was offered, 
as Scripture states it, for the vshole world," iM. p. 153. 
This, Fathers, is surely sufficient to show most convin- 
cingly, that there never was a piece of more flagrant impu- 
dence than yours upon tliis topic; but 1 shall still make you 
pronounce sentence against yourselves. What do you re- 
quire of any man to clear him from the imputation of secret 
concert with Geneva? 'If M. Arnauld" (to quote your 
Father Meinier, p. 83) ^*liad said that in this adorable 
mystery there w as no substance of bread under the speciCvS, 
but only the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, 1 should have 
allowed that he had been in direct opposition to Geneva." 
O shameless impostors, confe.js it then at oiice, and make a 
public reparation for the public injury you have done him. 
How often has this been i*epcated in the })receding passages: 
and, besides, the Familiar Theoloi^y of M. de St. Cyran, as 
approved by M. Arnauld, contains the sentiments of both. 
Read the w liole of tlie fifteenth lecture, particularly the 
second article, and you w ill there find the words you demand, 
even more formally expressed than by yourselves: *»ls 
there any bread in the host, or wine in the cup? ]No — 
for the whole substance of the bread and of tlie wine is 
taken away to make room for the body and blood of Jesus 



238 PROVINCIAt LETTERS. 

Christ, vvliicli alone remains there, covered with the quali- 
ties and species of hread and w ine." 

Will you now, Fathers, affirm, that Port-Royal teaches 
notliing hut what Genera admits, or that M. Arnauld says 
nothing in his second letter, hut what might have been said 
by a minister of Charenton? See if you can make Mestrezat 
speak as M. Arnauld does in his letters, p. 237, **that it is 
an infamous falsehood to accuse him of denying transub- 
stantiation; that lie takes for the basis of his writings the 
truth of the real presence of the Son of God, in opposition 
to the heresy of the Calvinists; that he deems himself happy 
to be in a place where the Holy of holies is continually 
adored as present in the sanctuary." This is much more op- 
posite to the Calvinistic creed than the real presence itself; 
because, as Cardinal de Richelieu says in his controversies, 
p. 5^^, <'the new ministers of France having united with 
the Lutherans, who believe the real presence of Jesus Christ 
in the sacrament, have thereby declared that they do not 
separate from the churcli as to this mystery, but in refer- 
ence to the adoration which the catholics render to the Eu- 
charist." Ohtain the signature of Geneva to all the passa- 
ges I have cited from the books of Port- Royal; and not 
only to these, but to entire treatises respecting this mystery, 
as the book on Frequent Communion — the Explication of 
the Ceremonies of the Mass — the Exercise during Mass — 
the Reasons of the Suspension of the Holy Sacraments — 
the Translation of the Hymns of the Hours at Port-Royal, 
&c. — in a word, establish at Charenton this holy institu- 
tion of constantly adoring Jesus Christ contained in the 
Eucharist, as it is at Port-Royal, and you will be doing 
the greatest service that can possibly be rendered to the 
church: for then Port-Royal will no longer act in concert 
with Genevay but Geneva with Port-Royal and the whole 
church. 

Really, Fathers, you could never have hit upon a worse 
expedient than to accuse Port-Royal of disbelieving the Eu- 
charist — but I will explain what induced you to adopt this 



PROVINCIAI. LETTERS. 239 

proceeding: I understand, you know, a little of your policy, 
which on this occasion has been of some service. If M. de 
St. Cyran and M. Arnauld had only been good enough to 
inform us what our faith in this mystery ought to have 
been, and not what ought to be done as preparatory to it, 
they would have been the best catholics in the world, and 
no kind of ambiguity would have been found in the terms 
real presence and transiibstantiation. But as it is necessa- 
ry to look upon all who oppose your laxity as heretics, and 
must be so in every particular which they venture to ques- 
tion, how could M. Arnauld be otherwise upon the Euchar- 
ist, after having written a book expressly against your 
profanations of this sacrament? Could he possibly say, 
with impunity, **that we ought not to give the body and 
blood of Christ to such as frequently relapse into the same 
sins, and discover no signs of amendment? and that they 
ought to be separated some time from the altar, in order to 
purify themselves by a sincere repentance, that they may 
afterwards approach it with profit?" Pray, Fathers, do 
not suffer people to talk at this rate, otherwise I am appre- 
hensive your confessionals will not be very crowded; for 
your Father Brisacier says, *'if you pursue this method, 
you can apply the blood of Jesus Christ to nobody." You 
had better follow the practice of your Society, which Fa- 
ther Mascareniihas mentions in a book, approved by your 
doctors, and by the reverend Father-General himself, 
namely, ^^Persons of every class, and even the priests, may 
receive the body of Jesus Christ the very day they are pol- 
luted with abominable crimes. So far from such commu- 
nicants manifesting any irreverence, on the contrary they 
are praiseworthy. Confessors ought not to put them off, 
but should advise those who come from the commission of 
such iniquities, to communicate immediately: for though the 
church has forbid it, this prohibition is abolished by the 
universal practice of the whole world." Mascar, tr. 4. 
disp. 5. n. 284. 

See, Fathers, see what it is to have Jesuits dispersed 



240 PR0V15fCIAL LETTERS. 

over the whole surface of the whole earth! see the universal 
practice you have introduced, and constantly uphold ! It 
signifies nothing wliat ahominations you hring to tlie table 
of Jesus Christ, provided your churches be full. Be sure 
and prove that every opponent to this principle is a heretic 
against the sacrament. It must be done, at any rate. The 
difficulty is, how this can be sliown, after so many incon- 
testable evidences of their faitli. And now are you not 
alarmed, lest I should produce the four grand proofs you 
have adduced of their heresy? You ought to be so; and I 
tliink I ought not to spare you the shame of them. 

With regard to the fii-st: ''M. St. Cyran states, that Fa- 
ther Meinier, to console one of his friends on the death of 
his mother, torn. i. let, 14, says, *the most acceptable sa- 
crifice that can be offered to God on such occasions, is pa- 
tience:' then he is a Calvinist!*' Very fine, Fathers; very 
clever, indeed — though I question whether any one can see 
the reason why. But this we have from himself: **because/' 
adds this great polemic, *'he does not believe the sacrifice 
of the mass, for that is the most acceptable of any." 

Wi41 any person now pretend tliat the Jesuits are not 
famous reasoners? They are, in truth, such adepts, that 
they can make any thing they please heretical — nay, Scrip- 
ture itself: for, pray, would it not be a heresy to say, as in 
Ecclesiastes, * 'Nothing is worse than the love of money — 
nihil est iniquius qudm amare pecnniam?^' as if adultery, 
murder, and idolatry were not greater crimes! In fact, 
who does not say something of a similar nature every day; 
as, for instance — the sacrifice of a contrite and broken 
heart is the most acceptable with God — because, in such 
propositions, the intention is only to compare together cer- 
tain internal virtues, and not these with the great sacrifice 
of the mass, which is quite of a different order, and in- 
finitely superior. Are you not, then, extremely ridiculous? 
or is it necessary to complete your confusion by introducing 
a quotation from the same letter, in which M. St. Cyran 
speaks of the sacrifice of the mass as the most excellent of 



PROriXCIAL LETTERS. 841 

all: *^VfG offer to God every day, and in all places, the sa- 
crifice of the body of his Son, who could not find a more 
excellent method than this of honouring his Father." He 
adds, '^Jesus Christ has required us, when dying, to par- 
take of his sacrificed body, to make the sacrifice of our own 
more acceptable to Godj and that, by thus uniting himself 
to us in death, he may strengthen us, through sanctifying 
by his presence tlie last sacrifice we make to God of our 
life and body." But, Fathers, dissemble all this— perse- 
vere in stating as you have done, p. 33. that he diverted 
men from the sacrament at the hour of death, that he disbe- 
lieved the sacrifice of the mass^ for nothing is too bold for 
slanderers by profession to assert. 

Your second proof furnishes new evidence on this point. 
To make out M. St. Cyran (to whom you attribute the 
book of Petrus Aurelius) a Calvinist, you introduce a pas- 
sage where Aurelius, p. 89, explains the conduct of the 
church towards priests and bishops whom she wishes to 
depose or degrade. < 'The church," iie says, **not being 
able to take away the power of the order> because the char- 
acter cannot be affected, she proceeds thus — she blots that 
character from her memory which it is impossible to exter- 
minate from the souls of those who have received it: she 
considers them as no longer her priests or bishops^ so that, 
according to the common consent of the church, we may 
say they are no longer sucli, though they still remain such 
as to the character — oh indelebilitatem characterise You 
see, Fathers, that this author, approved by three general 
assemhles of the clergy of France, expressly afl5rms the 
character of the priesthood is indelible; and yet you make 
him say precisely the contrary in tlie very same place, 
*'that the character of the priesthood is not indelible." — . 
Now this is a most monstrous calumny — that is to say, as 
you would term it, a venial^ trifling offence. This book has 
affected you deeply, by refuting th^ heresies of your Eng- 
lish brethren respecting episcopal authority. But liow pro- 
digious is your extravagance' for, having falsely imagined 

n 



^42 PROYIXCIAL LETTERS. 

ihatM. St Cyran holds this character capable of being 
effaced, you hurry on to the conclusion that he does not 
believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Euchar- 
ist. 

You do not, I suppose, expect me to reply to this absurd- 
ity; for if you have not common sense, really I cannot give 
it you. All who have, however, will be abundantly amused 
both with you and your third proof, which is founded 
on the following words in the Frequent Communmi, part 
til. ch. 11. '*God gives us in the Eucharist the same food 
with which he supplies the saints in heaven, without the 
least difference, excepting it be this, that here he takes away 
the sight and sensible taste, reserving both for the heaven- 
ly world." Surely, my good Fathers, these words so na- 
turally express the sense of the church, that I cannot im- 
agine at this moment how you can pervert them. I can 
see nothing in them but what the Council of Trent teaches, 
Sess. 13 > p. 8. that there is no other difference between Jesus 
Christ in the Eucharist and Jesus Christ in heaven, but 
here he is veiled, there he is not. M. Arnauld does not say 
there is no other difference in the manner of receiving Jesus 
Christ; but, simply, there is no other difference in Jesus 
Christ who is received. But, in contradiction to all rea- 
son, you would make him assert in this passage, that Jesus 
Christ is no more eaten with the mouth here than he is in 
heaven: ergo, he is a heretic! 

I really cannot help pitying you. Fathers. Shall I ex^ 
plain again? How is it you confound this divine food with 
the manner of receiving it? The only difference, as I have 
just stated, between this food on earth and in heaven is, here 
it is hidden under veils which conceal it from our sensible 
taste and sight: but there are many differences in the man- 
ner of receiving it, both on earth and in heaven; of which 
the principal, according to Mr. Arnauld, part. iii. ch. 16. 
is, *'Here Christ enters into the mouth and stomach both 
«f the righteous and the wicked," — but it is not so in hear 
yen. 



PROVIXCIAL LETTERS. 245 

If, Fathers, you continue ignorant of the occasion of this 
diversity, allow me to inform you that the reason why God 
appointed the different modes of receiving the same food, 
is the difference which subsists between the condition of 
Christians in the present life and that of the blessed in hea- 
yen. **The state of Christians," observes cardinal du Per- 
ron after the Fathers, '4s a medium between the blessed and 
the condition of the Jews. The blessed possess Jesus Christ 
really, without a figure and without a veil. The Jews ne- 
ver possessed Christ but under figures and veils, as in the 
manna and the paschal lamb; and Christians possess Jesus 
Christ in the Eucliarist truly and really, but still under 
veils." '*God," says St. Eucharius, "made himself three 
tabernacles — the synagogue, which had nothing but sha-- 
dows without truth — the church, whicJi has both shadows 
and truth — heaven, where there are no shadows, but 
truth alone." We should depart from the state in which 
we are, that state of failh which St. Paul places in opposi- 
tion to the law as well as to perfect vision, were we only to 
possess figures without Jesus Christ, because it is the pro- 
perty of the law to have the shadow of things only and not 
the substance; and we should err again if we possessed him 
visibly, because * 'faith," as the apostle affirms, *'is the evi- 
dence of things not seen." The Eucharist, therefore, is 
precisely adapted to our state of faith, because it contains 
Jesus Christ truly, though veiled. Hence, this state of faith 
would be destroyed, if Jesus Christ were not really under 
the species of bread and wine, as heretics pretend: it would 
also be destroyed, if he were received unveiled as in hea- 
ven, because this would be to confound our present condi- 
tion either with the state of Judaism or that of glory. 

This, Fathers, is tlie mysterious and divine reason of this 
mystery, which is itself altogether divine: this is the reason 
why we hold the Calvinists in abhorrence, because they 
would reduce us to a state of Judaism; and this makes us 
aspire to the glory of the blessed, where we shall enjoy the 
full and eternal presence of Jesus Christ. By this you per- 
ceive there exists a variety of methods in which h« corar' 



S44 PllOTIJfCIAL LETTERS. 

mHnicates himself to Christians on earth and those in hea- 
ven; and, amongst others, here below he is received into the 
mouth — not so in heaven; but they all depend upon the dif- 
ference whicli subsists between the state of faith in which 
we are and the state of perfect vision in which they are 
placed. This, fathers, led M. Arnauld to speak so expli- 
citly in these terms: **There ought to be no other difference 
between the purity of those who receive Christ in the Eu- 
charist and that of the blessed, but what there is between 
faith and the full vision of God, on which alone depends the 
different manner in which he is eat on earth and in heaven." 
You ought to have reverenced the truths contained in these 
words, instead of perverting them to detect a heresy which 
never was there and never can be; namely, '*that Jesus 
Christ is eaten only by faith, not by the mouth," as your 
Fathers Annat and Meinier maliciously affirm, making it 
the chief point of their accusation. 

Your proofs, then, my good Fathers, seem very defective| 
which occasions your having recourse to a new artifice, 
that of falsifying the Council of Trent, in order to show M. 
Arnauld's conformity to it: such are your methods of making 
the world heretical. This is done by Father Meinier in 
fifty places of his book, and eight or ten times in the single 
page 54, where he pretends that it is not enough, as a true 
Catholic, to say, <'I believe that Jesus Christ is really 
present in the sacrament;" but *^I believe, with the Council^ 
that he is present there by a true local presence or locally." 
He then cites the Council, Sess» 13. can. 3. can. 4. can. 6. 
Who would not suppose, as soon as he saw the phrase local 
presence quoted from three canons of a general council, it 
was really there? This might have passed very well pre- 
vious to the publication of my fifteenth letter; but now, Fa- 
thers, people are not to be caught: they look at the acts of 
the Council, and find you out to be impostors: for, posi- 
tively, the words local presence^ localltfj locality^ were never 
there! And I further declare that they are in no other part 
©f that council, nor indeed of any other council, nor in any 



PHOVIirCIAL LETTER!. f4S 

Father of the church. After this, I should be glad to be 
informed whether you will pretend to throw a suspicion of 
being Calvinistic upon all those who have not adopted this 
phraseology? If so, the Council of Trent is itself suspi- 
cious, and ^all the holy Fathers, without exception. Can 
you devise no other method of making M. Arnauld hereti- 
cal, but that of offending so many other people who never 
did you the slightest injury, as St. Thomas, who is one of 
the most strenuous advocates of the Eucharist, and who, so 
far from adopting, absolutely rejects this phraseology p. 3. 
9. 76. a. 5. ^^nullo modo corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento 
localiter.'^ Who then are you, Fathers, to impose, by your 
single authority, new terms, which you pronounce to be 
better adapted to express the faith of mankind; as if the pro- 
fession of faith drawn up by the popes according to the de- 
cree of the Council, where this term is not to be found, 
were defective, and left an ambiguity upon the faith of 
Christians which you only have discovered ! What teme- 
rity, to prescribe terms to the divines themselves! What 
falsehood, to impute them to general councils ! What ig- 
norance, to know nothing of the objections of the most en- 
lightened saints ! Blush — blush for your ignorant impos- 
tures, and remark what Scripture says to such characters: 
**Be mendacio ineruditionis tu3e confundSre*^' 

Relinquish, then, I beseech you, all further attempts at 
dictation: you have neither character nor credit for the pur- 
pose. If you would introduce your propositions with more 
modesty, one might 'pay them some attention; for though 
the term local presence was rejected, as you have seen, by 
St. Thomas, because the body of Jesus Christ is not in the 
Eucharist, in the ordinary sense in which other bodies oc- 
cupy certain spaces; nevertheless, the term has been received 
by some modern controversialists, understanding by it mere- 
ly, the body of Jesus Christ is truly under the external spe- 
cies, which being in a particular place, the body of Christ 
must be so likewise. In this sense, M. Arnauld will feel 
HO difficulty in admitting it, since M. de Cyran and he have 



246 PROVIXCIAL LETTERS, 

frequently declared that Jesus Christ, in the Eucl^arist, is 
really in a particular place, and miraculously in many dif- 
ferent places at the same moment. So that all your refine- 
ments fall to the ground, and you have not the slightest pre- 
tence for an accusation, which ought never to have been 
brought forward without irrefragable proofs. 

But of what avail is it, Fathers, to oppose their innocence 
to your calumnies? You do not charge them with these er- 
rors from any conviction that they maintain them, but from 
a belief that they are calculated to injure you; and, accord- 
ing to your theology, that is quite sufficient innocently to ca- 
lumniate them: and you may, without confession or peni- 
tence, say mass, at the very time you represent the priests, 
who perform it every day, as believing it to be a piece of 
pure idolatry; which is such a shocking sacrilege, that you 
yourselves ordered your own Father Sarrigus to be hung 
in ef^^y^ because he had celebrated mass at the time he 
maintained an understanding with Geneva. 

I am really astonished. Fathers, not indeed at your charg- 
ing such crimes upon people with so little scruple, but at 
your imputing such improbable crimes with so little pru- 
dence: for though you dispose of the sins of mankind as you 
please, do you suppose you can also dispose of their faith? If 
the suspicion of Calvinism must fall either upon them or upon 
you, I really think you would be in a bad plight. Their state- 
ments are as catholic as yours; but their conduct confirms 
their profession, yours belies it. If you truly believed, as 
they do, that the bread is changed into the body of Jesus 
Christ, why not demand, as they do, that the stony and' 
icy hearts of those whom you advise to participate it should 
be sincerely changed into hearts of flesh and love? If you 
believe that Jesus Christ is under a state of death in the 
sacrament, to teach those who partake of it to die to the 
world, to sin, and to themselves, why do you invite those 
\vhose vices and criminal passions are still alive and preva- 
lent? And how can you esteem those to be worthy of eat- 
ing the bread of heayen, who do not deserve to eat that of 
earth? 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 



247 



Noble worshippers of this holy mystery, whose zeal is em- 
ployed in persecuting those who honour it by so many lioly 
communions, and flatter such as dishonour it by so many 
sacrilegious ones!! — How worthily do these advocates of 
this pure and adorable sacrifice fill the table of Jesus Christ 
with abandoned and inveterate sinners, just come from 
their infamous abominations; and, among them, placing 
a priest whose confessor has sent him from his impurities 
to the altar, to offer there, in the place of Jesus Christ, 
that holy victim to the God of holiness, and with his 
polluted hands put it into mouths no less defiled! Does 
it not well become tliose who, according to the approved 
maxims of their own General, practise in this manner all 
over the worlds to charge the author of Frequent Commu- 
nion, and the nuns of the Holy Sacrament, with not believ- 
ing in the holy sacrament? — But this is not sufficient: for, 
in order to satisfy their passions, it is found necessary to 
accuse these nuns of having renounced Jesus Christ and their 
baptism. These are not inventions, Fathers,- they are the 
sad, the awful extravagances by which you have filled up 
the measure of your calumnies. Such a prodigious forge-. 
vy was not in proper hands to support it while remaining 
with your good friend Filleau, to whom, however, you were 
indebted for it: but your whole Society has openly appropri- 
ated it; and your Father Meinier has maintained, as an i?i- 
disputable truths that Port-Royal has been engaged, for this 
five-and-thirty years, with M. St. Cyran and M. Ypres, as 
the principal partizans, in forming a secret cabal ** to des-: 
troy the mystery of the Incarnation, to make the Gospel 
pass for an apocryphal history, to exterminate the Chrisr. 
tian religion, and to elevate deism upon its ruins." And 
is this is all, Fathers? And shall you be satisfied, if all 
this should be believed of them which your hatred suggests? 
Will your animosity be satiated, if you could make them 
abhorred, not only by all who belong to the church, hy a 
secret coalition with Geneva of which you accuse them, but 
also by all believers without the pale of the church, by the 
deism you charge upon them ? 



S48 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

But who do you imagine will be convinced, upon your 
mere word, without the shadow of a proof, and amidst all 
possible contradictions, that priests who preach nothing but 
the grace of Jesus Christ, the purity of the Gospel, and the 
obligations resulting from baptism, have really renounced 
baptism, the Gospel, and Jesus Christ? Who, I say, will 
give credit to such a statement? Do you really believe it 
yourselves, base as you are? To what an extremity are 
you reduced? for you must of necessity either prove that 
they are not believers in Christ, or be deemed the most in- 
famous of calumniators. Prove it then, Fathers. Adduce 
your evidence. Name the worthy ecclesiastic who, you say, 
assisted at the assembly of Bourg-Fountaine in 1621, and 
disclosed to your Filleau the project of destroying the 
Christian religion. Name the six individuals who as you 
affirm conspired for this purpose. Name the persons in- 
tended by the letters A. A. who, you assert, p. 15, is not 
Anthony Arnauld, because he has convinced you he was not 
at that time more than nine years of age, **but another, 
who," you declare, "is still alive, and too good a friend of 
Mr. Aruauld to be unknown to him.'* You know him then, 
of course; and, consequently, if you have a spark of reli- 
gion left, you are under an obligation to bring this impious 
individual before the king and parliament, that he may be 
punished according to his demerits. You must speak out, 
Fathers; you must name him, or endure the shame of being 
regarded as liars who will never more deserve a moment's 
credit. 

This is the method taught us by good Father Valerian, 
of putting such impostors as you to the rack and driving 
them to the utmost extremity. Your silence will be a full 
and perfect evidence of this diabolical calumny. The very 
blindest of your adherents will be compelled to acknowl- 
edge that this silence *4s no proof of your virtue, but of 
your weakness;" and will be astonished that you could be 
so wicked as to launch out even against the nuns of Port- 
Royal, and to say, as you have done, p. 14, that ^Hhe secret 



PROVIXCIAX LETTERS. ft49 

chapletof the holy saQvamentj composed by one of them, was 
the first fruit of that conspiracy against Jesus Christ; and 
in p. 95, *^that they are inspired Avith all the detestable 
maxims of that book, which is," according to you, 'in- 
struction in Leism." Your representations, with regard 
to tliat performance, have been already completely refuted 
in "tlie defence of the censure by the late archbishop of Pa- 
ris against your Fatlier Brisacier," to which you have not 
replied; yet you continue to abuse still more scandalously 
than ever those pious females, w ell known as such to all the 
world, as impious in the extreme. Cruel and merciless 
persecutors ! — cannot tlie most retired cloisters be an asy- 
lum against your caluninies? Whilst those holy virgins 
adore Jesus Christ in the holy sacrament, day and night, 
according to their institution, you cease not, night and day, 
to proclaim publicly that they do not believe either that he 
is in the sacrament, or at the right hand of the Father; and 
while they are praying in secret for you and the whole 
church, you are as publicly engaged in cutting them off from 
membership. You revile those who have neither ears to 
hear, nor tongue to answer. But Jesus Christ, in whom 
they are hidden till they appear with him in glory, hears 
you, and answers for tlicm. Even now we hear that holy 
and tremendous voice which startles nature and consoles 
the church; and I am apprehensive. Fathers, that such as 
harden their hearts, and proudly refuse to attend when he 
speaks as a God, will be forced to listen with horror when 
he speaks to them as a Judge. 

Oh, Fathers, what account will you be able to render of 
your numerous calumnies, which he will examine, not ac- 
cording to' the fantastic notions of your Fathers Dicastillus, 
Gains and Pennalossa, who excuse them, but upon the prin- 
ciples of eternal truth, and the holy ordinances of his churcbp 
by which they are so far from being excused, that they are 
condemned and punished as wilful murderers. For the 
church has suspended calumniators as well as murderers 
from communion, till the hour of death, by the first and 
3'^ 



950 FROTINCIAL LETTERS. 

second council of Aries. The council of Lateran adjudged 
those who were convicted of this crime, although reformed, 
to be unworthy of holy orders. The popes threatened such 
as had slandered bishops, priests, or deacons, with the re- 
fusal of the communion until death; and the authors of any 
defamatory publication, who are unable to bring proof of 
what they assert, are condemned by pope Adrian to be 
whipped — yes, reverend Yathevs— -flag ellentur! So offensive 
have the errors of your corrupt Society always been to the 
church—- a society which excuses in others such prodigious 
crimes as calumny, in order to commit them herself with 
the greater freedom ! 

Assuredly, Fathers, you would be able to do much mis- 
chief, if God had not so ordered it, that you should your- 
selves furnish the means of prevention, and render all your 
impostures inefficient. For it is only necessary to publish 
that extravagant maxim which exempts them from guilt, 
to annihilate all your reputation. Calumny is useless, un- 
less its propagators be in great esteem for sincerity. A 
backbiter could by no means succeed, unless he could in- 
duce mankind to believe that he abhorred backbiting, and 
was utterly incapable of it. And thus, Fathers, your own prin- 
ciple betrays you: for you wished to backbite without being 
damned, and to be esteemed those <*holy and pious calum- 
niators," of whom St. Athanasius speaks. For the pur-, 
pose, therefore, of saving yourselves from perdition, you 
have embraced that maxim which will certainly save you, 
according to your doctors; but yet, this very maxim which 
guarantees you from the miseries you have reason to ap- 
prehend in a future world, takes away from you, in this 
life, all the advantage you might expect from it: so that 
while you think of avoiding the vice of slander, you lose 
the benefit of it, so contrary is wickedness to itself, con- 
founding and destroying itself by its own malignity. 

You might slander others with more advantage, by pro- 
fessing to agree with St. Paul, that mere evil speakers— 
maledUi — are unworthy of seeing God; for your calumniei 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 851 

would at least be better credited, though, in fact, you must 
condemn yourselves. But, by saying as you do, that it i» 
no crime to slander your enemies, your misrepresentations 
will be disbelieved, and your souls exposed to perdition. — • 
Certain it is, Fathers, that as your grave authors can nev- 
er annihilate the justice of God, so you cannot furnish a more 
decisive proof of having abandoned the truth, than by hav- 
ing recourse to falsehood. If truth were on your side, she 
would fight and she would conquer for you; and whatever 
enemies you might have, she would, according to her pro- 
mise, **deliver you from them all." You recur to false- 
hood only to flatter sinners, and to support the calumnies 
with which you load those pious persons who oppose you. 
Truth being contrary to your views, you must put your 
trust in lies, as the prophet expresses it — **We have made 
lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:'* 
and what is the prophet's reply, < 'Because you have trust- 
ed in calumny and oppression — sperastis in calumnid et in 
tumultu — therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach 
ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking 
Cometh suddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as; 
the breaking of the potter's vessel that is broken in pieces — 
he shall not spare: so that there shall not be found in 
the bursting of it a shred to take fire from the hearth, or to 
take water out of the pit;'* '^because," as another prophet 
represents it, "because with lies ye have made the heart of 
the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strength- 
ened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return, 
from his wicked way, by promising him life: I will deliver 
my people out of your hand, and ye shall know that I ami 
the Lord." 

It may be hoped, therefore, if you do not change your 
behaviour and spirit, God will take out of your hands, 
those whom you have so long deceived, either by leaving, 
them to their misconduct through your wickedness, or by- 
poisoning them with your slanders. He will lead some to 
perceive that the erroneous rules of your casuists will not 



S5« PROTIITCIAL LETTERS. 

screen them from his displeasure, and will impress on oth- 
ers a just fear of their own perdition, if they listen and be- 
lieve your impostures, while you will destroy yourselves by 
inventing and circulating them in the world. Be not de- 
ceived, God is not mocked. No man can break his com- 
mandments with impunity, which enjoin us not to condemn 
our neighbour till we are assured of his guilt: consequent- 
ly, whatever profession of piety may be made by those who 
receive your falsehoods with an unexamining carelessness, 
and whatever pretence of devotion they have for it, may 
justly apprehend an exclusion from the kingdom of heaven, 
for accusing Catholic priests and holy nuns of such enor- 
mous sins as heresy and schism, without any other evidence 
than your gross impositions. *'The devil," says the bishop 
[ of Geneva, **is upon the tongue of the slanderer, and 
in the ear of the person who listens to him;" and ^^slander," 
observes St. Bernard, Serin. 24. in Cant is a poison which 
extinguishes charity in both : so that one single calumny 
may prove fatal to an incalculable number of souls, because 
it destroys not only those who publish it; but those also 
who do not reject it." 

Reverend Fathers, my letters have not usually followed 
each other in such rapid succession, nor have they been in 
general so long; the little time I have had is the reason of 
both. I should not have extended this so much, but that I 
cannot command leisure to shorten it. What occasioned 
my haste is, in fact, better known to you than to myself.— 
Your replies succeed miserably, and you have done quite 
right to alter your method of proceeding; but I doubt whe- 
ther you have now adopted a proper one, and whether the 
world will not be ready to say you have been afraid of the 
Benedictines. 

I learn that the person whom the world calls the author 
of your apologies disavows them, and is vexed that they are 
attributed to him. He has, indeed, reason enough to be so, 
and I was wrong to suspect him; for, from whatever quar- 
ter it proceeded, I ought certainly to have given him credit 



PROVINCIAL LETTEHfr. fi5S 

for too much sense to believe your impostures, and too much 
honour to publish tliem without such belief. Few people 
are capable of such extravagances as yours — they are so 
completely your own, so truly characteristic — that I am 
inexcusable for not perceiving their source. Common re- 
port misled me. But I am aware that this apology, too 
good for you, does not suffice for me, who profess to affirm 
nothing without substantial evidence, and who have not 
done so, this instance excepted. I therefore regret it — I 
renounce it — and I sincerely wish you may profit by my 
example. 



254 PHOVINCIAL LETTERS. 



LETTER XVII. 



TO THE REV. FATHER ANNAT, JESUIT. 



By the unanimous Consent of all the Divines, and particu- 
larly of the Jesuits, the •Quthority of the Popes and of 
(Ecumenical Councils is not infallible in Questions of Fact. 



Reverend Father, Jan, 23, 1657. 

YoTJR mode of proceeding induced me to suppose that you 
were desirous of a cessation of hostilities on both sides, to 
which I was quite disposed; but you have since produced so 
many pieces in so short a time, that it seems as if it were 
not very easy to establish peace when it depends on the si- 
lence of Jesuits. I cannot tell whether this rupture will be 
serviceable to you; but for my part, I am by no means sorry 
that it affords me an opportunity of refuting that common- 
place charge of heresy which abounds in your writings. 

It is time, once for all, to put a stop to that audacity with 
which you treat me as a heretic, and which increases every 
day. You have ventured to do so in the book you have 
just published with such insufferable and unceremonious 
boldness, as would really render me suspected, were I not 
to reply to this reproach in the manner it deserves. I had 
passed over this injury with the same contempt with which 
I treated a multitude of others, indiscriminately thrown to- 
gether in the writings of your fraternity. My fifteenth let- 
ter contained a sufficient answer,- but now you assume ano- 
ther tone — you make it the very chief point of your defence, 
and almost the only one of which you avail yourselves: 
**for," say you, <Ho answer all my fifteen letters, it is suffi- 



PROVINCIAL LETTERi. 255 

cient to say fifteen times over,-that I am a heretic, and, be- 
ing declared such, deserve no credit." My apostasy, 
then, is not to be doubted, which, being laid down as a fun- 
damental principle, you proceed boldly with your super- 
structure. Very good, Fathers; and since you treat me as 
a heretic, I must in earnest sit down to answer you. 

A charge of this nature, my good Fathers, you know 
very well, is so important, that to advance it without proof 
would be an intolerable piece of rashness. I ask, then, 
where are your proofs? When was I seen at Charenton? 
When did I neglect to attend mass, or to perform the du- 
ties to which all Christians are bound in their respective 
parishes? When have I done any thing to unite with here- 
tics or to promote schism in the church? What council 
have I contradicted? What papal constitution have I vio- 
lated? You must answer these questions. Father, or 
you know my meaning. But you do reply. Well — I beg 
every body to pay particular attention to your answer. In 
the first place, you suppose that ^'the writer of the letters 
belongs to Port-Royal:" then you add, ^'Port-Royal is 
avowedly heretical;" hence you infer, *'the writer of the 
letters is a declared heretic." This accusation does not 
fall upon my poor head, but upon Port-Royal; and you on- 
ly charge me with it because you imagine me to be one of 
that community. However, I can very easily parry this 
thrust, by simply saying, I do not belong to them; and, as 
a proof, referring you to my letters, in wiiich I have stated, 
**l am alone," and in express terms, ''I am not of Port- 
Royal." Pray turn to my sixteenth letter, which appeared 
previously to the publication of your book. 

You must devise, then, another method of proving me to 
be a heretic, or every body will sec your inability to do it. 
Prove, by my writings, that I reject the constitution: they 
are not so very numerous, you have only sixteen letters to 
examine, in which I defy you — yes — I defy you and the 
whole world, to produce a syllable of the kind; but you shall 
there see quite the reverse. When, for instance, I said in 



256 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

the fourteenth letter, ^^that whoever, according to your 
maxims, kills any of his brethren in a mortal sin, damns 
them for whom Christ died," did I not plainly acknowl- 
edge that Jesus Christ died for those lost souls? It is there- 
fore false to say, <*that he died only for the predestinated," 
which doctrine is condemned in the fifth proposition. It 
is certain, therefore, my good Father, that I have not ad- 
vanced any thing in support of such impious propositions, 
which I abhor from my very heart: and if Port-Royal hold 
them, I aver that you can furnish no proof against me, be- 
cause, thanks be to God, I have no attachment to any so- 
ciety whatever, but to the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman 
church, in which I wish to live and to die, in communion 
with the pope, its supreme head, and out of wliich I am 
persuaded there is no salvation. 

What can you do with a person of this stamp? Where 
can you attack him? since neither my conversations nor 
writings furnish the least pretext for your accusations of 
heresy, and I am secure from your menaces by the obscurity 
wiiich conceals me. You are struck by an invisible hand, 
which exposes your extravagances to the whole world, and 
you endeavour, but in vain, to attack me in the person of 
those with whom you imagine I am connected. But I am 
neither afraid of you for myself or any one else, not being 
attached either to any particular fraternity or individual. 
All your power is unavailable. I neither hope, nor fear, 
nor wish any thing in this world: thanks be to God, I nei- 
ther want any person's property or influence. So, my good 
Fathers, I am out of your reach: you cannot take hold of 
me in any way. You may touch Port-Royal, but not me. 
You may expel as many as you please from the Sorbonne, 
but you cannot expel me. You may act with the utmost 
violence against priests and doctors, but you cannot affect 
me, who possess neither of these characters. And thus, 
perhaps, you never before had to deal with a person so com- 
pletely out of your reach, and so qualified to combat 
your errors, being free, without engagement, without at- 



PSOVIiXClAL LETTERS. *57 

tachment, without connection, without relation, without 
business, well acquainted witli your maxims, and fully re- 
solved to pursue them as far as I think Providence calls on 
me to do so, independently of all thovse human considerations 
which miglit tend to retard my progress. 

What use is it then, Father, as you can do nothing 
against me, to publish such calumnies against persons who 
have no concern in our differences. Tliis proceeding, how- 
ever, shall not avail you. You shall feel the force of that 
truth which I produce against you. I maintain that you 
annihilate Christian morality by separating it from the 
love of God, from wliich you dispense mankind; and you, 
by way of reply, tell me that Father Mester is dead, wliom 
1 never saw in my whole life! I state that your authors 
permit * 'murder in revenge for an apple, when it is dis- 
graceful to loose it" — and you reply, that "a poor's box 
was broke open at St. Merry." Tell me, 1 beseech you, 
what you mean by every day fastening upon me the book of 
The Holy Virginity,* composed by a Father of the oratory, 
wliose face and book are equally unknown to me. I am all 
astonishment. Father, for you seem to regard all your op- 
ponents as one person. Your hatred seizes them all to^ 
gopher, forming them into one compact body of reprobates, 
and thus obliging every individual to answer for all the rest. 
There is a prodigious difference between tlie Jesuits and 
tlieir opponents. You compose one body united together 
under one head, and your regulations, as I have shown, 
prohibit the publication of any thing without the approba- 
tion of your superiors, who make themselves responsible 
for tlie errors of each member of the society: so that it can- 
not be any excuse to say that, ''they did not observe the 

• This book is a translation from St. Aug-ustin, by Father Seguenot, 
priest of the oratory. There was, in reality, nothing reprehensible in 
the book itself, but this Father added some strange notes to it, well de- 
serving of censure; and, as it proceeded from the oratory, which society 
was always attached to the d6ctrine of St. Augustin, an attempt was madi^ 
to make the blame of it fall upon the Jansenists. ^ 

33 y^,*':^^ 



258 phovincial letters. 

errors taught in said book," because it was their duty t(» 
observe them, according to your ordinances and the letters 
of your generals Agaviva, Vitellesclsi, &c. It is perfectly 
reasonable, therefore, to repi'oach you as responsible for 
the extravagant sentiments of your fraternity, whose works 
are approved by your 'superiors and divines. But it is 
quite otherwise with me. I never subscribed to the book 
of The Holy Virginity. I should not be less a Catliolic, 
were all the poor's boxes in Paris broke open: and, in one 
word, I declare loudly and plainly, that no one is responsi- 
ble for my letters but myself, and for nothing else do 1 hold 
myself accountable. 

Here I might finish, without alluding to those other indi- 
viduals whom you treat as heretics, merely for the purpose 
of involving me in the accusation; but since I am tiie occa- 
sion of this charge, I feel myself under some obligation to 
avail myself of the present x)ccasion to deduce three advan- 
tages from it. A very considerable one, is to clear up the 
innocency of so many aspersed characters; another, quite 
to my present subject, is to expose the artifices of your po- 
licy in this accusation; but the most important of all is, that 
I sliall convince the whole world of the falsehood of that scan- 
dalous report, which you are circulating in every direction, 
'*that the church is divided by a new heresy." And, as you 
involve a number of people, by inducing them to believe that 
the points about which you raise such a dreadful disturb- 
ance are essential to faith, I deem it of the utmost conse- 
quence to destroy those false impressions, by distinctly ex- 
plaining in what they consist, to show that there are, in 
reality, no heretics in the church. 

Js it not a fact, that were the question proposed, in what 
^he heresy of those whom you term Jansenists consists, the 
immediate answer would be in their saying, *'that the com- 
mandnaents of God are impossible, that grace cannot be re- 
sisted, tliat no man is a free agent in doing good or evil, 
that Jesus Christ did not die for all men, but for the elect 
,pnly,* and^ lastly, that they maintain the five propositions 



♦ 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. £59 

condemiied by tlie pope?" And pray, do you not assure 
e.xcvy body tbat this is the very reason why you persecute 
your opj)()nents? Is not tliis avowed in your writings, in 
yoijr conversations, in your catechisms, as at St. Louis at 
Christtnas, by asking one of your little girls, *'For whom 
did Jesus Christ come into tiie world, my child?" — "For 
all men, iather." — *'You are not then, my child, one of those 
modern heretics who say, he came only for the elect?" — 
The children, of course, give you implicit credit, and so do 
many others whom you entertaiii with stories in your ser- 
mons similar to tliose of your Father Crasset at Orleans, 
wiio was accordingly suspended. I must here confess, that 
I was one of your credulous hearers formerly, when you 
instilled the same ideas respecting these people: so that 
when you ui'ged them upon these propositions, I care- 
fully noticed their reply determining to pay no further re- 
gard to them, if they did not protest their solemn renuncia- 
tion of such obvious impieties: but they did so, and most 
openly; for M. de St. Beuve, professor to the king in the 
Sorbonne, in his writings, censured tliese five propositions 
long before the pope and the doctors issued many other pub- 
lications (among others, that on victorious grace), in which 
they reject tliese propositions as heretical and strange. They 
say, in the preface, "These propositions are heretical and 
Lutheran, fabricated and forged at pleasure, and no where 
to be found in Janscnius or .any of his supporters." This 
is an exact quotation of their words, and they complain of 
having such doctrines attributed to them, addressing you 
in the language of Prospcro, tlie first disciple of their mas- 
ter St. Augustin, to the semi-Pelagians of France, who ac- 
cused him in the same manner to make him odious — "There 
are people," says this saint, *'who are inliuenced by so 
blind a rage to decry us. as to liave ad()])ted a method well 
calculated to ruin their own reputation; for they have pur- 
posely invented certain propositions, full of impiety and 
blasphemy, which they circulate in all directions, to make 
people believe tiiat we maintain them in the same sense they 



260 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

liave chosen to express in their writings: but our innocence 
and their malignity in charging us with impieties which 
•are solely of their own invention, will be seen by this 
reply." 

When, Father, I heard them speak in this manner be- 
fore the constitution, when I saw that they afterwards em- 
braced it with all possible respect, that they offered to sub- 
scribe it, and that M. Arnauld, in his second letter, had 
declared tiiis more strongly than I can represent, I should 
have considered it a sin to disbelieve their faith; and, in 
fact, they who had refused to give absolution to their friends, 
previous to the publication of M. Arnauld's second letter, 
have since declared, that after he had so plainly condemn- 
ed the very errors which were imputed to him, there exist- 
ed no sufficient reason for either his or his adherents' ex- 
communication from the church. But you did not concur 
in this, for which reason I began to suspect you were under 
the misguidance of passion. You threatened to make them 
sign the constitution, when you thought they would refuse 
it; but wdien you saw they were inclined to it of them- 
selves, you then said nothing more upon the subject. And 
though you ought after that to be satisfied with their con- 
duct, you must still, to be sure, treat them as heretics, *^be- 
cause," as you allege, **tl)eir hearts belied, their hands — 
they were outwardly Catholics and inwardly heretics." — 
This is your language in your answers to certain questions, 
p. 27 and 47. 

How strange a mode of proceeding, Father, does this 
appear! Of whom may not the very same thing be said? 
And what disturbance might not be excited by such pre- 
tences? ^*If," says Pope Gregory, *'we refuse to believe 
those who confess their faith, conformably to the sentiments 
of the church, we should render the faith of everj^ Catholic 
questionable." Regist, L 5. ep. 15. I began, Father, to 
think, '*that it was your design to make them heretics 
though they were not so," as the same pope says of a dis- 
pute of a similar kind in his days, ^'because,'' he adds, *'ttt 



PROVINCIAL lETTERi. £61 

refuse believing those who by their conFession witness they 
are in the true faith, is not opposing, hut making heresies — 
hoc noil est hxresim piirgare, sed facere, Ep. 16." But I 
knew, in fact, that there were no heretics in the church 
when I saw they were so well vindicated from all these her- 
esies, that you could not accuse them of any error in faith, 
and that you were reduced to tlie necessity of contending 
with them only upon questions of fact relating to Jan- 
senius, which could never he a heresy; for you would oblige 
thrm to acknowledge, **that these propositions were in Jan- 
senius, word for word, all of them, and in express terms," 
as you stated in your own hand-writing — siuguiareSt indi- 
vidnse, tntidem verbis apud Jansenium contentae, in your 
Cavilli, p. 39. 

From this moment your dispute began to be quite an in- 
diifcrent matter with me. So loiig as I believed you were 
contending about the truth or falsehood of the propositions, 
I heard you with attention, for it regarded the faith; but 
when I perceived the object was merely to know whether 
they were word for word in Jansenius or not, as religion 
was not at all concerned in it, neither was I. Apparently 
you said what was true, for to state that a sentence is word 
for word in an author is what cannot be mistaken, for which 
reason I am not astonished that so many persons, both in 
France and Rome, should have believed, from a statement 
so little suspicious, that Jansenius had already taught such 
doctrines. I was therefore not a little surprised to find, 
that this matter of fact, wKich you exhibited as so impor- 
tant, was false; and you were tiien challenged to quote the 
pages of Jansenius, where you discovered those proposi- 
tions word for word, which you have never been able to do. 

1 beg to state the whole, because it apj)ears to me it will 
suflSciently explain the spirit of your Society in this affair, 
and excite great surprise to see that, notwithstanding all I 
have said, you do not desist from publishing that tliey are 
heretics still; but you have only changed their heresy with 
the times. For, in proportion as they vindicated themselves 



S63 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

from one heresy, you substituted another, to prevent their 
ever being innocent. Thus, In 1653, their heresy respect- 
ed the quality of the proposition; afterwards, the word for 
word — then you placed it in the, heart; hut now, nothing is 
said of all this, and they must be heretics if they will not 
sign and seal, that '*the sense of the doctrine of Jansenius 
is founded in the sense of these five propositions." 

Such is the subject of the present dispute. You are not 
satisfied that they condemn the five propositions, and every 
thing in Jansenius conformable to them and contrary to St. 
Augustin, for all that they do; so that the question is not to 
know, for example, '*if Jesus Clirist died only for the 
elect" — they condemn tlmt as well as yourselves — but whe- 
ther Jatisenius be of that opinion or no: on wljich account I 
now declare more firmly than ever, that your dispute con- 
cerns me as little as it does the church. For though I am 
no more a doctor than yourself I can see, however, that 
faitlj has nothing to do with the question, since the only 
point is to know tlie sense of Jansenius. If they believed 
that liis doctrine were conformable to the proper and literal 
sense of these propositions, they would condemn it, and re- 
fuse to do it, only because they are convinced that it differs 
exceedingly from that sense; consequently though they 
should misunderstand it, they would not be heretics, since 
they understood it only in a Catholic sense. 

To explain this by an example, I will take the diversity 
of opinion between St. Basil and St. Athanasius, respecting 
the writings of St. Denis, of Alexandria, in which St. Basil 
thinking they were of the Arian principle, opposing the 
equality of the Father and the Son, condemned them as 
heretical; but St. Athanasius, on the contrary, believing 
them to contain the true sentiment of the church, upheld 
them as Catholic. Do you suppose. Father, that St. Basil, 
who held these writings to be Arian, had any right to treat 
St. Athanasius as a heretic, because he defended them? And 
what good reason could he have, since it was notArianism 
that Athanasius defended, but the true faith which he be- 



PROYIVCTAL LETTERS. 263 

liexed them to contain: IT these two saints had been agreed 
ahoiit the tiMic sense of those writings, and liad botl^ar- 
knowledged tliat heresy contained in them, doubtless St. 
. Atiianasids conid not approve tljeni without being heretical; 
but, as titey differed merely w ith regard to the meaning, St. 
Athanasius was a Catholic in maintaining them, though he 
had even misunderstood them, for it could only be an error 
of fact, and he merely defended the Catholic faith which he 
believed to be contained iii that doctrine. 

I say the same thing of you, Father. If you agree about 
the meaning of Janscnius, and your adversai-ies agree with 
you that he liolds, for instance, that grace cannot be resisted, 
those w ho should refuse to condemn liim, would be heretics; 
but wliile you dispute about this meaning, and they believe 
that, according to his doctrine, grace may be. resisted^ you 
have no reason to treat them as heretics, whatever heresy 
you attribute to him yourselves, since they condemn the 
sense which you impute to him, and you dare not condemn 
that which they impute. If, therefore, you would com- 
pletely refute them, show^ that the sense they attribute to 
Janscnius is iieretical, then they will be so themselves. But 
how could this be effected, since it is certain, from your 
own admission, that the meaning they gave him was never 
condemned? 

To set this in the most obvious point of view, I w^ill take 
as a principle, what you receive as such yourselves;* *'that 
the doctrine of ellicacious grace was not condemned, and 
the pope did not touch upon it in his constitution." Wiien, 
indeed, he wished to exaujine the five propositions, the arti- 
cle of ellicacious grace was screened from all censure. Tliis 
is apparent, from the opinions of the counsellors to whom 
the pope committed them for examination. I have these in 
my hands, and so have many persons in Paris; amongst 
otli-ers, the bishop of Montpelier, who brought them from 
Rome. It is plain their opinions were divided, and the 
principal persons among them, as the master of tlie sacred 
palace, the commissary of the Holy Office, the general of 



264 PKOVIXCIATi LETTERS. 

the Augustines, with others, thinking that these propositions 
m^hthe taken in a sense conformable with efficacious grace, 
were of opinion that they ought not to be censured: while 
the others, agreeing that tiiey ought not to be censured if. 
this were their real sense, deemed it right, however, tliat 
thev should be condemned; because, by their own declara- 
tion, it is very far from their proper and natural sense. — 
For this reason, the pope condemned them, and all acqui- 
esced in his judgment. 

It is certain then. Father, tliat efficacious grace was never 
condemned. It is moreover so powerfully maintained 
by St. Augustin, St. Thomas, and all his school, by so 
many popes, by so many councils, and by an universal tra- 
dition, that it would be impious to tax it with heresy. But 
all whom you treat as heretics, aver that they find nothing 
in Jansenius but this doctrine of efficacious grace; and this 
was the only point they maintained at Rome. You have 
yourself admitted the same, Cavill. p. 35, where you have 
declared, **that while speaking in the presence of the pope, 
they did not mention a single syllable respecting the propo- 
sitions — ne verbum qiiidem — but employed the whole time 
upon the subject of efficacious grace." Mistaken, there- 
fore, or not, it is at least certain that the sense they suppose 
Jansenius to have is not heretical, consequently they are 
not so. To say the truth in one word, either Jansenius 
taught only the doctrine of efficacious grace, in which case 
he cannot be charged with error, or, he taught something 
else; and in this case he has no supporters. The wliole 
question, then, comes to this, did Jansenius really teach 
any other doctrine than efficacious grace? If it can be dis- 
covered that he did, you will have the glory of understand- 
ing him best, but they will not have the misfortune of err- 
ing in the faith. 

Let us bless God, Father, that there is in reality no her- 
esy in the church, for, in this case, the question refers to a 
point of fact, out of which it cannot arise. The church 
decides all articles of faith by divine authority, and excom- 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 265 

niuiiicates such as refuse to see them; hut she proceeds dif- 
ferently in matters of fact; and the reason is, that our sal- 
vation is attached to the faitli which has been revealed to 
us and preserved in the church by tradition, but it does not 
depend on any other particular facts which God has not re- 
vealed. Thus, we are obliged to believe that the command- 
ments of God are not impossible, but we are not under the 
same obligation to know what Jansenius has taught upon 
the subject. God, therefore, conducts his church in deter- 
mining points of faith by the aid of his Holy Spirit, which 
cannot err; but, in matters of fact, he leaves her to act ac- 
cording to the dictates of reason and sense, which are the 
natural judges upon such occasions. None but God can. 
communieate instruction in matters of faith; but it is only 
necessary to rtad Jansenius, to know whether the disputed 
propositions be or not in his book. Hence, it is heretical 
to resist the decisions of faith, because it is to set up our 
mind in opposition to the Spirit of God. But to disbelieve 
particular facts is no heresy, though it may be a piece of 
rashness, because that is merely opposing reason, which 
may be clear, against an authority which, however consider- 
able, is not ijifallible. 

In this all the divines concur, as appears from the fol- 
lowing maxim of cardinal Bellarmin, of your Society. — 
**General councils legally assembled, cannot err in defining 
doctrines of faith, but they may upon questions of fact." 
Again — **The pope, as pope and even as t!ie head of a gene- 
ral council, may err in particular controversies respecting 
facts, which chiefly depend on the information and evidence 
of the witnesses." Cardinal Baronius says the same— • 
**The decisions of general councils must be entirely sub- 
mitted to in points of faitli; but, as to what concerns indi- 
viduals and their writings, censures inflicted upon them 
have not been observed with so much severity, because no 
one can be sure of never being deceived." For this reason, 
the archbishop of Toulouse deduced this rule from the let- 
ters of two eminent popes, St. Leo and Pelagius II. **that 
34 



St66 PROTINCIAL lETTERS. 

tljc projier object of cor.ncils is faith, and every thing whicli 
is determined there, independently of faith, may be review- 
ed and re-examined; but we ought not to entei' into any 
further investigation of what has been determined as a mat- 
ter of faith, because, as TertuUian says, the rule of faith is 
alone unalterable and irretractable." 

Hence, we have never seen general councils, legally col- 
lected, contradict each other in points of faith, * •because," 
as the archbishop of Toulouse says, **it is not lawful to ex- 
amine afresh what has been already decided as a matter of 
faith." AYc have sometimes seen the same councils oppose 
each otiier on articles of fact, v^Iicn the dispute referred to 
the sense of an author, »*because," says the archbishop, 
quoting from the popes. *^e\evy thing which has been de- 
cided in councils, excepting faith, may be reviewed and re» 
examined." Thus, the fourth and fifth councils appear 
contradictory in the interpretation of the same authors; and 
the same circumstance hajipened to two popes, about a prop- 
osition of some monks in Scythia: for, after Pope Homis- 
das had condemned it, in consequence of understanding it 
in a bad sense, Pope Jolin II. his successor, upon examin- 
ijig it anew, and understanding it in a good sense, approved 
and declared it catholic. Will you assert tliat one of these 
popes was heretical ? Must it not be confessed, then, thai 
provided the heretical sense is condemned which a pope 
supposed to be in a certain publication, a person is not he- 
retical for not condemning that publication in a sense in 
which it is certain the pope never condemned it; otherwise 
one of these popes must be in an error? 

I felt desirous, my good Father, of familiarizing you with 
the contradictions wliich occur between catholics upon 
questions of fact with regain! to the real sense of an author, 
by showing you one father of the church m opposition tw 
another, one pope against another pope, one cmrncilagaiJist 
another council, in order to conduct you to other examjdes 
of a similar opposition, though less equalized: for you will 
see councils and popes ouowe *ide, and Jesuits on the other. 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 267 

Opposing their decisions upon the sense of an author; notwith- 
standing which, you refrain from accusing your fraternity 
of heresy, or even of rashness. 

You very well know, Fatiier, that the writings of Origen 
were condemned hy several councils and popes, especially 
by the fifth general council, as containing heresies; among 
others, that of ^'the reconciliation of the devils at the day 
of judgment." Pray, do you believe it absolutely necessa- 
ry, in order to be a true catholic, to confess that Origen 
really held these errors, and that it is not sufficient to con- 
demn them, without attributing them to him? If so, what 
will become of your Father Ilalloix, who has maintained 
the purity of Origen's faith, as well as many other catholic 
writers, who have engaged in the same undertaking, as 
Pico de Mirandola, and Genehrard, doctor of the Sorbonne? 
And is it not also certain, that this \'cry same fifth general 
council condemned the writings of Theodoret against St. 
Cyril, as ''impious, contrary to the true faith, and contain- 
ing the Nestorian hei-esyr" Father Simond, a Jesuit, has, 
nevertheless, defended him, declaring, in the life of that 
Father, **that those writings were perfectly free from the 
Nesiorian heresy." 

You perceive then. Father, when the church condemns 
any writings, she supposes an error in them, which is the 
object of condemnation, and then it is to be taken for grant- 
ed that error is condemned; but it is not necessary to believe 
that the writings in question actually contain the error 
which the church supposes. This, 1 think, is sufficiently 
proved; and 1 shall finish these examples with that of Pope 
Honorius, who is so generally known. At the commence- 
ment of the seventh century, when the church was troubled 
with the heresy of the Monothclites, this pope, to settle the 
difference, issued a decree, which seemed to favour those 
heretics, which was very offensive to many. It passed, 
however, during his pontificate, with little clamour; but, 
fifty years afterwards, when the church assembled in the 
sixth general council, and Pope Agatho presided by his le- 



t$t PROVTNCIAT. LETTERS. 

gates, this decree was brought forward, and, after being 
read and examined, was condemned, for containing the he- 
resy of the Monothelites; and, as such, burned in full assem- 
bly, with the other writings of those heretics. This deci- 
sion was received with so much respect and unanimity 
throughout the whole church, that it was afterwards con- 
firmed by two other general councils, and even by Popes 
Leo II. and Adrian II. who lived two hundred years after- 
w^ards, without an individual venturing to disturb that uni- 
versal and peaceable agreement during seven or eight cen- 
turies. But some more modern authors, and, among oth- 
ers, cardinal Bellarmin, have maintained, without any ap- 
prehension of being termed heretics, in contradiction to so 
many popes and councils, that the writings of Honorius are 
free from the error of which they have been accused; '*be- 
cause," says he, * 'general councils being capable of erring 
in questions of fact, it may be said, with the utmost confi- 
dence, that the sixth general council was mistaken in that 
particular case; and that, not having clearly understood 
the meaning of Honorius' letters, wrongly placed that pope 
among the number of heretics. 

Observe, then, Father, that no one can be a heretic for 
saying that Pope Honorius was not one, though many popes 
and councils have pronounced him one, and that too after 
an examination of the subject. Now, then, I come to our 
present question, and I will allow you to make your own 
cause as good as you possibly can. What will you say to ren- 
der your adversaries heretical? *'ThatPope Innocent X. has 
declared the error of the five propositions is in Jansenius?" 
Very well — and what do you infer? **That it is heretical 
not to admit that the error of the five propositions is in Jaij- 
senius?" What think you of this. Father? Does not our 
question, then, relate to a fact of the same nature with the 
preceding? The pope has declared, that the error of the 
five propositions is in Jansenius, in the same manner as his 
predecessors had declared, that the error of the Nestorians 
and Monothelites was in the writings of Theodoret andi 



PROVlXCTATi LETTET?S, 269 

Honorius. Upon wJiich, your Fathers liave pubJislicd, that 
they readily condemn tliese heresies, but that they do not 
admit these authors ever maintained them; as your present 
adversaries say, they readily condemn those five propositions, 
but do not allow that Jansenius taught them. Really, Fa- 
ther, these cases are amazingly similar; and, if any differ- 
ence exist, it is easy to see tlie advantage on the side of the 
present question, by a comparison of many particular cir- 
cumstances, very obvious of themselves, and which I shall 
rot, therefore, detain you to explain. Pray, whence does 
it arise, that in the very same case your Fathers are cath- 
olics, and your adversaries heretics? By what strange ex- 
ception do you deprive them of a liberty, which you concede 
to all otlier Christians? Will you say, *'that the pope has 
confirmed his constitution by a brief?" To this I should 
answer, tliat two general councils, and two popes, have 
confirmed the condemnation of the letters of Honorius. — 
What stress do you lay on the words of this brief, by which 
the pope declares, *'that he has condemned the doctrine of 
Jansenius in those five propositions?" But what is this to 
the constitution^ and what follows from it? but that, as the 
sixth council condemned the doctrine of Honorius, believ- 
ina: it to be the same with that of the Monothelites: in the 
same manner the pope says he condemned the doctrine of 
Jansenius in the five propositions, because he supposed it 
to agree with those five propositions. And how could he 
believe otherwise? Your Society avowed nothing else; and 
you, Father, yourself said, they were there word for word, 
and were at Rome at the very time of the censure: — you 
see I meet you every where! Could the pope distrust the 
sincerity or capacity of so many grave religious men ? How 
could he resist the conviction, that the doctrine of Jansen- 
ius was the same with that of the five propositions, as- 
sured that they were word for word in that author? It is 
obvious, therefore, if it be found that Jansenius never held 
these doctrines. It need not be said, as your Fathers have 
intimated in their examples, that the pope mistook this point 



t70 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

of fact, which is always mischievous to publish, but only 
that you misled the pope, which will bring no scandal upon 
you, because you are so well known already. 

Thus, it appears, this affair is far enough from consti- 
tuting a heresy: but being determined to make one at any 
rate, you have endeavored to divert the question from the 
point of fact to that of faith, in the following manner. **Tlie 
pope," say you, ^'declares, he has condemned the doctrine 
of Jansenius in the five propositions: the doctrine of Jan- 
senius, therefore, respecting them, is to be deemed hereti- 
cal, whatever it may be." A strange article of faith truly, 
that a doctrine is to be considered as heretical, be it what 
it may. What! if, according to Jansenius, we way resist 
internal grace, and if, too, it be false that Jesus Christ died 
for the elect only, must that be condemned also because it is 
his doctrine? Shall it be true in the constitution of the pope, 
tliat we ?iYQ free to do good or evil, and yet false in Jansenius? 
By what facility is it that in bus book truth becomes heresy? 
Must it not be admitted, that he is only heretical in case of 
conformity to those errors which are condemned, since the 
constitution of the pope is the rule to which Jansenius must 
be applied, to form a judgment of what he is by his con- 
formity to it. In this way the question, whether his doC' 
trine be heretical, may be resolved by another, whether it 
he conformable to the natural meaning of these propositions; 
it being impossible to make it heretical if this conformity 
be discoverable, or to make it catholic if the reverse. For 
as, according to the pope and the bishops, these propositions 
are condemned in their proper and natural sense, they cannot 
be condemned in the sense of Jansenius, unless the sense of 
Jansenius be the same with the proper and natural sense of 
these propositions, which is a point of fact. 

Here, then, the question still rests; and it is impossible 
to make it a matter of right, consequently not of heresy. It 
may, indeed, become a pretext for persecution, if any ex- 
pectation could exist of persons being foimd to enter suffi- 
ciently into your interests to sanction such injustice, and 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 271 

comply with your wishes by signing to the statement, that 
ihey condemn these propositions in the sense of Jansenius, 
without giving any explanation of that sense. Few people, 
however, are disposed to sign a blank profession of laith, 
to be filled up afterwards as you might tliink proper, be- 
cause you would be left at liberty to put whatever interpre- 
tation you pleased upon Jansenius. Explain it, then, pre- 
viously, or we shall have a second edition of the next pow- 
er — ubstrahendo ah omni sensu. But this, you are well 
aware, will never succeed. Mankind abhor ambiguity, 
especially in matters of faith, where it is perfectly just that 
people should at least understand w hat they condemn. And 
how can it be, that those doctors who are convinced that 
Jansenius has no other sense but that of efficacious grace, 
should consent to declare, that they condemn his doctrine 
w ithout any explanation of it; since, according to their pres- 
ent and confirmed belief, they must condemn Cificacious 
grace, which would be criminal? Would it not be a strange 
tyranny to reduce them to this unhappy necessity, either to 
render themselves guilty in the sight of God, by signing 
this condemnation against their conscience, or to be treat- 
ed as heretics, by refusing to do so? 

But all this is very mysterious. Your proceedings are 
all political. I must, therefore, give a reason why you 
have not explained the meaning of Jansenius. 1 write mere- 
ly for the purpose of exposing your designs, and, by this 
means, rendering them useless. I ought, then, to state to 
such as are uninformed of it, that your principal interest 
in this dispute being to promote the snfficient grace of your 
Molina, you cannot accomplish this witliout destroying the 
efficacious grace opposed to it. But as you see that the 
latter is at this day authorized at Rome, and by all the 
most learned men in the church, being unable to combat it in 
itself, you have been thinking of an attack which should not 
be perceived, by giving it the name of the doctrine of Jan- 
senius: and thus you have invented a mo !c of procuring the 
condemnation of Janscniuii, withoiit examination^ and to sue- 



£78 PROVIJTCIAI. LETTERS. 

ceed the better, you affirm that his doctrine is not that of effi- 
cacious grace, to make it believed that one may be condemn- 
ed independently of the other. Of this you have constant- 
ly endeavored to persuade those who are unacquainted with 
this author. You, Father, liave done precisely the same 
in your Cavill. p. 28, by this subtle representation — '*the pope 
has condemned the doctrine of Jansenius, but the pope has 
not condemned the doctrine of efficacious grace; consequent- 
ly, the doctrine of efficacious grace is diffiirent from that of 
Jansenius." If this argumeiit were conclusive, it might be 
shown in the same manner that Honorius and all his adhe- 
rents are heretics: '*The sixth council has condemned the 
doctrine of Honorius, but the council has not condemned 
the doctrine of the cliurch; therefore the doctrine of Hono- 
rius is different from that of the church; consequently, all 
who defend him are heretics." It is plain no conclusion 
can be deduced from this statement, since the pope has only 
condemned the doctrine of the five propositions, which he 
was led to believe was that of Jansenius. 

But this is of no consequence, for you do not intend long 
to pursue such a mode of reasoning: still it will last long 
enough, weak as it is, to answer your purpose. It is mere- 
ly intended to induce such as would not condemn efficacious 
grace, to condemn Jansenius without scruple. Wh-en this 
is done, the argument will soon be forgot, but the signa- 
tures will remain as an eternal testimony to the condemna- 
tion of Jansenius. You will take occasion directly to at- 
tack efficacious grace by a superior mode of reasoning, 
which you will adopt in good time. <*The doctrine of Jan- 
senius," you will say, *'has been condemned by the uni- 
versal subscriptions of the whole church; but this doctrine 
is manifestly tiiat of efficacious grace;" and this you will 
easily prove; **whence the doctrine of efficacious grace is 
condemned, even by the admission of its own advocates.'* 

We see, then, the reason of your proposing to sign this 
condemnation of a doctrine, without explaining it, and also 
the advantage you profess to gain by this proceeding. But 



PROVINCIAL "LETTERS. 273 

if your adversaries refuse to ilo the same, you lay another 
snare for thein, on account of such refusal: for, having dex- 
terously blended the. question of faith with that of fact, 
without allowing any separation, or any signing of one 
without the other, as they cannot sign both, you will pub- 
lish it every where, that they have refused both together: 
and tlius, though, in fact, they merely decline acknowledg- 
ing that Jansenius held tlie propositions they condemn, 
which, after all, could constitute no heresy, you will boldly 
assert, they have refused to condemn the propositions in 
themselves, and>that they are on that account heretical. 

Behold the advantage you would gain by tlieir refusal, 
which certainly is not inferior to what you cocild draw from 
their consent ! So that, if their signatures be required, 
they will equally fall into your snares, whether they do or 
do not sign, and you will reap the benefit in either case: yes, 
such is your exquisite management, that whatever turns 
up, you will always be the gainers. 

How completely I know you. Father ! and how grieved I 
am to see that God has so forsaken you, as to permit your 
success in such a wretched affair; Your prosperity demands 
compassion, and can never be envied b}' any, but such as are 
ignorant of real happiness. It is really charitable to thwart 
a success procured by such means, because it is founded 
on falsehoods, of which you w^ould have us believe one of 
the two following: — either that the church has condemned 
eflScacious grace, or that its advocates maintained the five 
condemned errors. 

Let all the world, therefore, understand, that efiicacious 
grace is not condemned, by your own acknowledgment, and 
that no man maintains those errors: and let all be aware, 
that they who refuse to sign what you require, only refuse 
it with regard to the matter of fact; and being willing to 
sign that of faith, their refusal cannot stamp them as here- 
tics: because, though these propositions be indeed deemed 
heretical, there is no necessity to believe them to be the 
propositions of Jansenius. His adherents are in no error: 
35 



274 PROVIXCTAT. LETTERS. 

that suffices. They may possibly interpret Jansenius too 
favourably, but perhaps you do not interpret him enough 
so. Passing this^ I am sure that, according to your max- 
ims, you think it no crime to publish that he is a heretic, 
contrary to your own knowledge; while, according to theirs, 
they could not innocently affirm he was a Catholic, unless 
they were fully convinced of it. They are, consequently, 
more sincere than you, Father; they have examined Janse- 
nius as much as you have: they are no less intelligent than 
you; they are, therefore, no less worthy of credit. But let 
this point of fact be as it may, they are undoubted Catho- 
lics; for it surely is not necessary, in order to establish this 
claim, to say that another is not so, or to fix a charge of 
error upon them. It is quite sufficient to clear one's self. 



FRBVl.^CIAIi LETTERS. ^7S 



LETTER XVIII. 

TO THE REV. FATHER ANx\AT, JESUIT. 

Evidence still more incontestable adduced even from Fathet 
Jnnafs Repliji that no heresy exists in the Church. Every 
body condemns the Doctrine which the Jesuits impute to Jan- 
senius; and thus all Christians agree on the Subject of the 
Five Propositions, Difference respecting the Q^iestions of 
Right and Fact pointed out. With regard to the latter, 
one ought to rely more upon our own Senses than upon any 
human Jluthority. 



Reverend Father, March 14, I65r. 

Long, long have you used every effort to discover some er- 
ror in your adversaries; but, I am persuaded, you will at 
last confess that nothing can be so difficult as to make out 
those persons to be heretics who are really not so, and who 
are solicitous of nothing so niucJi as to avoid it. • 

I have pointed out, in tlie preceding letter, how many 
heresies you have imputed to tlicni in succession, being un- 
able to support a single charge for any length of time^ so 
that nothing remained but to accuse them for refusing to 
condemn the sense of Jansenius, whicli you were anxious 
should be done, without giving any explanation. To be 
reduced to this measure is, indeed, a proof how much you 
are at a loss for subjects of accusation: for who ever heard 
of a heresy incapable of being explained? The reply, there- 
fore, was easy — by only representing to you, that, if Jan- 
senius be not in any error, it is unjust to condemn him; and 
if he be, it becomes you to declare it, that at least the rea- 



&7Q PKQVINCIAl* LETTEKS* 

fion of his condemnation might be understood. This, hcrw^ 
ever, you were by no means disposed to do,* but have at- 
tempted to corroborate your charge by appealing to deci*ees, 
which made nothing in your favour, because they afford no 
explanation of tlie sense of Jansenius said to be condemned 
in these five propositions. This was not the way to brings 
your disputes to a termination. Could any agreement 
be concluded respecting the true sense of Jansenius, and 
were the only point of difference whether this sense ought 
to be deemed heretical or not, then the opinions whicb 
should pronounce this sense to be heretical would bring the 
question at once to issue. But, as the grand subject of 
dispute respects the real sense of Jansenius, one party al- 
leging that they can sec nothing in it but the sense of St. 
Augustin and -St. Thomas; the other, that they discover an 
heretical sense, which, however, they do not explain; it is 
clear, that a constitution which does not say one syllable 
about til is difference, and only condemns in general the 
sense of Jansenius, without explaining it, determines noth- 
ing of tlie point in dispute. 

On this account, you have been repeatedly told, that the 
subject of your difference relating only to this fact, it will 
never be brought to a close but by declaring what you un- 
derstand to be the sense of Jansenius." But as you have 
always refused to do so in the most obstinate manner, I was 
ol)ligcd to urge you in my last letter; in which I intimated, 
that it was not without some secret purpose that you under- 
took to procure* the condemnation of this sense .without ex- 
plaining it; and that design was some time or other to make 
this indeterminate kind of condemnation fall upon the doc- 
trine of efficacious grace, by showing it to be no other than 
than that of Jansenius, which would be no difficult under- 
taking. Tliis has rendered it necessary to reply: for if you 
had still remained obstinately determined not to explain 
this sense, the simplest person must have perceived that 
you really intended to demolish the doctrine of efficacious 
grace, which would have been to your utter confusion, on 



PROVINCIAI LETTERS. ^77 

account of the profound respect which the church entertains 
for this holy doctrine. 

You have now been under the necessity of declaring 
yourself, in your reply to my letter, in which I had repre- 
sented to you, that *'if Jansenius, in these five propositions, 
had any other meaning than that of efficacious grace, he 
would find no supporters; but that if he really had no other 
meaning, he was chargeable with no errors." It is impos- 
sible for you to deny this statement; but you make a distinc- 
tion of this kind, p. 21: **it is not sufficient, in vindication 
of Jansenius, to allege that he holds nothing but efficacious 
grace, because that may be received in two senses — the one 
heretical, with Calvin, consisting in saying that the will, 
influenced by this grace, possesses no power of resistance; 
the other orthodox, with the Thomists and the Sorbonne, 
which is founded on the principles established by councils; 
namely, that efficacious grace governs the will, of itself, in 
such a manner as to admit of resistance. 

All this is admitted: but you conclude by saying, **Janse- 
nius would have been a good Catholic if he had defended effi- 
cacious grace as the Thomists maintain it; but he is heretical, 
because he is opposed to the Thomists, and agrees with Cal- 
vin, who denies the power of resisting tliis grace." At pres- 
ent, I shall not examine this question, whether Jansenius re- 
ally coincides with Calvin: it is enougli that you assert it, 
and now inform us, that by the sentiment of Jansenius you 
understood nothing else than the doctrine of Calvin. Was 
this, my good Father, all you intended to say? Was it no- 
thing but the error of Calvin that you wished to condemn un- 
der the name of the opinion of Jansenius? Why not, then, dis- 
tinctly avow this at first? You would by such a piece of can- 
dour, have spared yourself an immense deal of trouble. All 
the world would have agreed with jou in condemning this 
error, without any bulls or briefs. Well, how necessary 
was the eclaircissemcnt, and what difficulties it removes! 
We really did not know what error it was that the popes 
and bishops were aiming at under the name of the sense of 



fi78 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

Jansenius. The whole church was in the greatest agita- 
tion, and nohody would explain it. But you have now 
done it, my good Father; you, who are considered by your 
own party as their head and the prime mover in all their 
councils, and who know the secret of all this proceeding, 
have stated that the sense of Jansenius is no other than the 
sense of Calvin condemned by the council. Behold, then, 
the resolution of our doubts ! Yv^e are now assured that the 
error which they intended to condemn by the phrase, the 
s&nse of Jansenius, is no other than the sense of Calvin; and 
thus we continue in subjection to their decrees, by uniting 
with them to condemn that sense of Calvin which they were 
so desirous of condemning. We are no longer surprised 
to find that the popes, and some of the bishops, have mani- 
fested so much zeal against the sense of Jansenius. How 
could they have done otherwise, as they cherished the ut- 
most confidence in those who publicly declare that this sense 
is the same with that of Calvin? 

I must insist, therefore. Father, that you have nothing 
further to censure in your adversaries, for they, most as- 
suredly, detest the very sentiment which you detest I on- 
ly feel surprised at your ignorance of it, and of their general 
opinions on this subject, which are so repeatedly avowed 
in their writings. I am persuaded that, if you were better 
informed, you would deeply regret not having been so far 
disposed to a spirit of peace, as to acquaint yourself with a 
doctrine so pure and so truly Christian, and which passion 
has impelled you to oppose without understanding it. You 
would otherwise have seen that they not only maintain, that 
these feeble graces, called exciting or inefficacious, from 
their not achieving the good they suggest, are effectually 
resisted; but that they are also as strenuous in asserting, in 
contradiction to Calvin, the power of the human will to 
resist efficacious and victorious grace, as in affirming, con- 
trary to Molina, the power of that grace over the will, be- 
ing equally jealous of both these truths. Too well do they 
know, by experience, that man in his own nature has al- 



PROVINf'tAL T.TLTTERS. 279 

ways the power of sinning and ol' resisting grace, and that, 
since his fall, he carries about witli him a dreadful fund of 
evil propensities, which inconceivably increases this power; 
but, nevertheless, when it pleases God, in infinite mercy, 
to touch his heart, he makes him do whatever he chooses, 
and in whatever manner, without this infallible operation 
of God in any measure destroying the natural liberty of 
man> and which is accomplished by tlie secret and admira- 
blemethods by which tl»e Divine Being produces this change, 
so excellently described by St. Augustin, and which remove 
all the apparent contradictions which the enemies of effica- 
cious grace imagine to exist between the sovereign power of 
grace over free-will, and the power of free- will to resist grace. 
According to that eminent saint, to whom the popes and the 
church have referred as a guide in this matter, God changes 
the human heart by a heavenly sweetness of disposition im- 
parted to it, which, overcoming the sensuality of the flesh, 
causes man, on the one hand, to perceive his mortality and 
nothingness, and, on the other, to discover the greatness 
and eternity of God, and produces a distaste for the plea- 
sures of sin, whicli separate him from incorruptible blessed- 
ness. Finding his supreme enjoyment in the God who at- 
tracts him, he inclines infallibly, and of himself, to this 
good, by a bias entirely free, voluntary, and afiectionate, 
so that to be separated from it would be a grief and a pun- 
ishment. Not tliat he becomes incapable of departing from 
it, or of departing effectually if he cliose: but could he be so 
disposed, when tlie will never propels him to do an}- thing 
but what is most pleasing to him^ and notliing pleases him 
so much, tlien, as that single good, which comprehends in 
itself all others? '^((uod enim aviplius nos, delectatj secun^ 
dinn idnperemur necesse esty^ as St. Augustin observes. 

In this manner God disposes of man's free-w ill, without 
imposing; necessity on him; and that free-will, which can 
always resist grace, but is not always desirous of doing so, 
leads as freely as it does infallibly when he draws him by 
the sweet influence of his eliicacious inspirations. 



280 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

Father, these are the divine principles of St. Augustin 
and St. Thomas, who concur in affirming, that <»we are 
able to resist grace," in opposition to the opinion of Calvin; 
but, nevertheless, as Pope Clement YIII. says, in his epis- 
tle to the congregation, de auocUiis, *<God forms in us the 
suggestions of our will, and clFectually disposes of our heart, 
by the dominion which his supreme majesty possesses over 
the will of man, as well as over all the rest of his creatures 
under heaven, according to St. Augustin." 

By these principles, besides, we can act for ourselves, 
and thus possess a merit truly our own, contrary to the error 
of Calvin: nevertheless, God being the first principle of our 
actions, and '^working in us what is well-pleasing in his 
sight," as St. Paul expresses it, ''our good works are the 
gifts of God," according to the language of the Council of 
Trent. 

Hence the impiety of Luther, which is condemned by the 
same council, is destroyed — '»that we do not in any way co- 
operate in our own salvation more than inanimate things;" 
and, by the same means, the impiety of the Molinist school 
is destroyed, which refuses to admit that it is the energy of 
that grace which causes us to co-operate with it in the work 
of our salvation; by which the principle of faith established 
by St. Paul is overtumcd — "it is God that worketh in us 
both to will and to do, of his good pleasure.'' In a word, 
it is by this means all those passages of Scripture which 
appear most contradictory are made to agree, as, '*Turn 
ye to the Lord — Turn us unto thee, O Lord — Break ofif 
thine iniquities^ — God will subdue our iniquities — Do works 
meet for repentance — Lord, thou hast wrought all our works 
in us — Make you a new heart and a new spirit — I will 
give unto you a new heart and a right spirit." 

There is but one mode of reconciling these seeming con- 
tradictions, which, at one time, attribute our good works 
to God, at another, to ourselves; which i» to admit, with 
St. Augustin, that *<our works are our own, because 
it is our free-will which produces them; and they are also 



I'ROVIXCIAL LF.TTKR9. SSI 

of God, because it is his grace which causes our free-will 
to produce them:" and, as he observes in another place, 
<*God makes us do whatever he pleases, by making us wil- 
ling to do that to which wc should otherwise be unwilling 
— a Deo factum est, ut vellent quod nolle potuissent.^^ 

Thus. Father, your adversaries are perfectly agreed 
with the new Thomists themselves, since the Thomists 
maintain, as well as they, both the power of resisting grace 
and the infallibility of the effect of grace, which they pro- 
fess to hold so strongly, according to that capital maxim of 
theirs, wiiich Alvarez, one of the most distinguished among 
them, so frequently repeats in his book, and expresses, 
disp. 72. n. 4. in the following words: *'When efficacious 
grace impels free-will, it infallibly consents, because the 
effect of grace is to cause, that though it has power not to 
consent, it does however, in fact consent ;" the reason of 
which he adds, from his master, St. Thomas, **that the will 
of God cannot fail of being accomplished; so that, when 
he wills that a man should consent to grace, he infallibly 
does consent, and necessarily, not from an absolute ne- 
cessity, but a necessity of infallibility ;" by w hicii grace 
does not impair **the power of resistance, if the inclination 
to do so exist,'* because it only makes one not will to resist, 
as Father Petau admits in these words, torn. 1. p. 602: 
**The grace of Jesus Christ causes one infallibly to perse- 
vere in piety, tliough not from necessity; for we have the 
power not to consent if we will, as the cojincil says; but thig 
same grace impels us not to will it." 

Here then, Fatlier, we have the uniform doctrine of St. 
Augustin, St. Prosper, the Fathers who followed them, the 
councils, St. Thomas, and all the Thomists in general. It 
is also that of your adversaries, though you have not sup- 
posed so; and it is the same with that which you have your- 
selves approved in these words, <'Thc doctrine of efficacious 
grace, which admits the power of resistance, is orthodox, 
supported by the councils, and maintained by the Thomists 
and theSorbonne." Now, Father, speak the truth: if you 
36 



282 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

}iad really known tiiat your adversaries held this doctrine^ 
])robably the interest of your Society would have prevent- 
ed your giving it this public approbation,* but, in conse- 
quence of supposing they were opposed to it, the same 
cause, the interest of your Society, induced you to author- 
ize the sentiments which you believed to be the reverse of 
theirs; and by this mistake, while anxious to destroy, you 
have really and most completely established their princi- 
ples. So that, by a kind of miracle, the advocates of effi- 
cacious grace are vindicated by the disciples of Molina: 
such are the admirable methods of Divine Providence, in 
making all things concur to promote the glory of his truth! 

All the world may now learn, by your own declaration, 
that this truth respecting efficacious grace, essential to 
every pious action, so dear to the church, and the price of 
her Saviour's blood, is so truly Catholic, that there is not 
an individual of this community, not even of the Jesuits them- 
selves, who does not acknowledge it to be ortliodox. It 
will be seen at the same ttme, by your own confession, that 
those whom you have so violently accused ought not to be 
an the slightest degree suspected of error; for when yon 
charged them with concealing sentiments they w^ere unwil- 
ling to avow, it was as difficult to defend themselves as it 
was easy to produce an accusation of this nature: but hav- 
ing now avowed, that the error for which you are obliged 
to oppose them is no other than that of Calvin, which you 
suppose they maintain, no person ^can fail of perceiving 
they are in reality free from every error, since they are 
quite opposed to the only one which you impute to them, 
and protest, both in their discourses, in their writings, and, 
in short, in every thing they can possibly produce in evi- 
dence of their opinions — that they condemn this heresy from 
the very bottom of their hearts, and in the same manner 
with the Thomists, whom you allow, without hesitation, to 
be Catholics, and who have never been suspected of be- 
ing otherwise. 

yyh^t iiavjB you now to allege against them, my worthy^ 



tKOVIXCIAL LETTEK3. 285 

Father? That though they do not concur in the sense of 
Calvin, they arc nevertheless heretical, because they are 
unwilling to admit that the sentiment of Janscniiis is the 
same with that of Calvin? Will you absolutely venture to 
affirm that this is a matter of heresy? Is it not a mere 
question of fact, which really cannot be in any way mould- 
ed into a heresy ? It would certainly be so to say that man 
has no power to resist efficacious grace; but can it be such 
to question whetlier Jansenius maintains this doctrine? It 
is a revealed truth? It is an article of faith which must be 
believed upon pain of damnation ! Is it not, after all, not- 
withstanding all you say, a point of fact, on account of 
which it would be ridiculous to pretend there were heretics 
in the church? 

No longer then, I beseech you, my good Father, apply 
this name to them; but devise some other, which may be 
more adapted to the imture of your difference. Say they 
are ignorant and stupid, and do not understand Jansenius — 
such reproaches would accord with your dispute*— but to 
call them heretics has really no relation to the question. — 
And as this is tho only reproach from which I propose to 
defend them, I need not take much trouble to show that they 
do understand Jansenius well. All I have to say is, that it 
appears to me, in judging of him by your own rules, it ia 
difficult to make him any thing else than a Catholic; for 
your mode of examination is indicated by the following 
statement: — 

<*To know," say you, <•' whether Jansenius is innocent, 
it is necessary to ascertain whether he defends efficacious 
grace after the manner of Calvin, who denies the power of 
resisting it — in that case he would be a heretic; or in the 
manner of the Thomists, who admit of such a power — then 
he w^ould be a good Catholie." Consider, then. Father, if 
he maintains this power of resistance, when he asserts 
throughout whole treatises, and, among others, in vol. 3. b. 
8. c. 520. *'that the power of resisting grace always exists, 
according to the Council; that the free-will can always act or 



284 PROVINCIAL I.ETTEE5. 

not act. wiil or not will, consent or not consent, do good or 
do evil; and that man has always during life these two 
kinds oNiberty, which you call the liberty of contrariety 
and contradiction.'* Notice further, if he be not opposed 
to the error of Calvin, such as you represent it, when ho 
shows, in chap. 21. *Hhat the cliurch has condemned this 
heretic, who maintains that efficacious grace does not act on 
the freedosn of the will in the latter, so long believed in the 
church, so that it is afterwards in the power of the free- 
\\i\\ to consent or not consent; instead of concurring with 
St. Augustin and the Council, that one has alw ays the pow- 
er of not consenting if we choose; and that, acconling to 
Prosper, God bestows even on his elect the will of perseve- 
ring, in such a manner as not to take away tlie ])ower of 
willing the contrary." Filially, judge if he does not agree 
with the Thomists, when he declares, c. 4. *'that every 
thing which the Thomists have written to reconcile the effi- 
cacy of grace with the power of resisting it, is so conforma- 
ble to his opinion, that it is only necessary to read their 
books to ascertain his sentiments — quod ipsi dixernnty dic- 
tum puta." 

Such is his mode of sj>eaking on all these topics; and, on 
this account, I suppose that he believes in the power of re- 
sisting grace, that his views are opposite to Calvin, and 
coincident with the Thomists, because he expressly says so, 
and therefore, according to your rules, he must be a Cath- 
olic. If you have any way of ascertaining the sense of an 
author besides his own expressions, and, if without quoting 
any of his words, you will aver in contradiction to them, 
that he derides the power of resisting, and is on the side of 
Calvin and against the Thomists, nevertheless, you need 
be under no apprehension of my accusing you of heresy; I 
shall only say, it seems to mc that you do not well under- 
stand Janscnius, but we shall not, on this account, be less 
the children of the same church. 

How is it, my good Father, that you conduct yourself in 
this dispute in so violent a manner, and treat as your cru- 



PROVIXCIAL LF.TTERS. 285 

elest enemies, anil the most dangerous of heretics, those 
wfiom you cannot accuse of any error, or indeed of any 
thing excepting their not understanding Jansenius as yoii 
do? For what is the subject of dispute, but the meaning of 
this author? You \\4s\i them to condemn him, but they de- 
mand what you mean? You say that you understand the 
error of Calvin: to which they reply that they condemn it; 
and therefore, if you do not contend about words but things, 
you surely ought to be satisfied. If they refuse to say they 
condemn the sense of Jansenius, it is simply because they 
believe it to be that of St. Thomas: so that this word is very 
ambiguous it seems: in your mouth it signifies the sense of 
Calvin — in theirs, of St. Thomas,* and hence, as the differ- 
ent ideas which you have of the same term, occasions all 
these divisions, if I were arbitrator of your controversy, I 
should interdict the word Jansenius on both sides. By 
which means, as you would be compelled to express nothing 
but what you understand by it, it would be seen that you 
require nothing but the condemnation of the sentiment of 
Calvin, in which they concur; and that they wish for noth- 
ing but the defence of the sense of St. Augustin and St. Tho- 
mas, in which you are bot!i agreed. 

For myself, then, I declare. Father, I shall always re- 
gard them as good Catholics, whether they condemn Jan- 
senius, if they should find him erroneous, or do not condemn 
him if they find nothing but what you affirm to be Catholic; 
and I shall address them as St. Jerome did John, bishop of 
Jerusalem, who was accused of holding eight propositions 
of Origen. ^'Either,'' said this saint, ''condemn Origcn, 
if you admit that he has maintained these errors, or at once 
deny that he held them — aut nega hoc dixisse cum qui ar- 
guituVf aut si locutus est talia, eum damna qui dixerit." 

In this manner they act who aim at the errors of men only, 
not their persons: while jou, attacking their persons in- 
stead of tlieir errors, think it useless to resist error, unless 
the persons to whom it is imputed, be also condemned. 

My good Father, what a violent mode of proceeding is 
this, and how ill adapted to become successful I I have said 



286 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

elsewhere, and now repeat it, violence and truth can never 
affect each other. Never were your accusations more out- 
rageous, and never was the innocence of your adversaries 
more notorious: never was efficacious grace more art- 
fully attacked: never was it more firmly established. You 
use your utmost efforts to induce people4o believe that your 
controversies respect points of faith, and never was it more 
completely apparent that the whole dispute turns upon a 
question of fact. You leave no method unattempted to cir- 
culate the impression that this point of fact is true, and ne- 
ver were people more inclined to doubt it. The reason is 
obvious — you availyourself of none of the natural modes of 
obtaining credit to a point of fact, which are to convince 
the senses, and to show in the book itself the w^ords it is 
said to contain. But you go in search of devices so remote 
from this simplicity of proceeding, that the greatest ignora- 
mus must be necessarily struck with it. Why not pursue 
the same method to which I have uniformly adhered in my 
letters in detecting so many of the bad doctrines of your 
authors, that of giving a correct reference to the places 
where each quotation is to be found? The curates of Paris 
did the same, and it will never fail to convince mankind. 
What would you have said, or what would have been 
thought, when you were reproached, for instance, with this 
proposition of Father Launy, *<that a monk may kill the 
individual who threatens to publish calumnies against him 
or his society, if he can defend himself by no other means, 
if your accusers had not quoted the places where these words 
are written? and if, however urgently you requested their 
authority, they had always obstinately persisted in refu- 
sing to inform you, and, instead of it, had gone to Rome to 
procure a bull to enjoin all the world to admit it? Would 
it not have been considered certain that they had surprised 
the pope into such a measure, and only had recourse to it, 
because they failed in all those natural modes of proof, w-ith 
which the truth of a fact supplies those who possess it? — 
Hence, they have only stated that Father Launy teaches 
this doctrine in vol, 5. disp. 36. n. 118. p, 544, of theDou- 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 287 

ny edition; so that those who wish to see this passage have 
found it, and nohody is in any doubt upon the subject. — 
This is a very easy and ready method of deciding ques- 
tions of fact, wlien one is in the right. How is it, there- 
fore, my good Father, that you have not adopted it? You 
say in your Cavillu *Hhat the five propositions are in Jan- 
senius word for word, in the express terms — iisdem verbis.^* 
But you have directly assumed they are not! What remain- 
ed, therefore, but a reference or quotation from the very 
page, if you had really seen them, otherwise 'to have con- 
fessed your mistake? Neither of these, however, has been 
done: on the contrary, perfectly conscious that all these 
passages from Jansenius, which you sometimes allege in or- 
der to dazzle the eyes of mankind, are not *Hhe individual 
and particular propositions condemned," which you enga- 
ged to produce from the book, you present us with certain 
constitutions which declare they are extracted thence, but 
without pointing out the place! 

I am aware of the reverence which Christians owe to the 
Holy See, and your adversaries sufficiently evince their re- 
solution never to depart from it,* but you are not to imagine 
it was any deficiency of respect which led them to repre- 
sent to the pope, with all the submission due from children 
to a father, and from members to their head, that he might 
have been surprised in reference to this fact; that he had 
not investigated it since his being elevated to the pontificate; 
and that his predecessor. Innocent X., had merely exam- 
ined whether these propositions were heretical, but not 
whether they were attributable to Jansenius. This induced 
a commissary of the Holy Office, one of the principal exam- 
iners, to say, that *'they could not be censured as the idea 
of any author — uon sunt qualificabiles in sensu proferentis — 
because they had been presented for examination without 
any reference to any person as the author — in abstractor et 
ut praescindunt ab omni proferente*' — as appears from their 
opinions recently published; that upwards of sixty doctors, 
and a great number of other intelligent and pious persons, 
have carefully read this book, without being able to disco- 



2S8 rilOVlNClAL LETTEltS. 

ver these propositions in it; but they found the very reverse, 
that those who succeeded in giving the pope this impres- 
sion, might well be supposed to abuse his confidence, inter- 
ested as they are to decry that author, who has convicted 
Molina of more than fifty errors. And what renders this 
the more credible, is their holding the following maxim as 
one of the most establislied in their system — 'Hhat it is not 
criminal to calumniate those persons by whom they deem 
themselves unjustly attacked." As their testimony is so 
suspicious, and that of others so considerable, there is some 
reason to supplicate his Holiness with all possible humility, 
to have this fact examined in the presence of the doctors of 
each party, in order to come to a solemn and regular deci- 
sion. **Let able judges be assembled," said St. Basil, on 
a similar occasion, ep. 75, <'and every one be free to exam- 
ine my writings — let them see if there be any errors in the 
faith — let them read the objections and tlie answers to them, 
that they may pass a judgment from knowing the cause, 
and with proper formality, and not deal in defamatory re- 
presentations without examination." 

Pray then, Father, do not aim to make those who should 
act in this manner looked upon as deficient in submission 
to the Holy See. The popes are far from treating Chris- 
tians so tyrannically as some who act in their name. **The 
church," observes St. Gregory, in Job , lib, 8. c. 1. **which 
was formed in the school of humility, does not command in 
an authoritative manner, but persuades by reason, what- 
ever she teaches her children, whom she supposes addicted 
to any error — recta quse errantihis dicit, non quasi ex 
auctoritate prdecipit, sed ex ratione perstiadet:*' and so far 
from deeming it a dishonour, to retract a decision into 
which they have been surprised, they, on the contrary, glo- 
ry in it, as St. Bernard testifies, ep. 180: *'The Apostolic 
See possesses this excellence, that it does not pique itself 
upon a point of honour, but is willing to revoke a judg- 
ment into which it has been led by surprise, and it is right 
that no one should profit by such an injustice, especially be- 
fore the Holy See." 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 289 

These are the proper sentiments to inculcate upon the 
minds of popes, since all divines are agreed that they are 
liable to surprise; and their supremacy is so far from being 
an effectual safeguard, that it really exposes them the more 
to such deceptions, on account of the variety of concerns 
that devolves upon them. This is what the same St. Gre- 
gory intimated to certain persons, who were astonished that 
another pope should have permitted himself to be misled. 
**Why," says he, L 1. c 4. Dial. <'why are you so struck 
with wonder at our being deceived — we who are but men? 
Have you never read of David, who had the spirit of pro- 
phecy, confiding- in the impositions of Ziba, and giving an 
unjust judgment against the son of Jonathan? Who, then, 
will consider it strange, that we should sometimes be sur- 
prised by misi'epresentations — we who are not prophets? 
The multiplicity of our affairs overwhelms us, and our 
minds, being distracted by so many different concerns, pays 
the less attention to each one in particular, and is therefore 
the more easily deceived in any of them." I do believe, 
my good Father, the popes know much better than yoii 
whether they are liable to be surprised or not. They tell 
us themselves, that the popes and the greatest monarchs 
are more exposed to deception than persons who are occu- 
pied with less important engagements; and I really think we 
ought to believe them. There is no difficulty in imagining 
in what manner they may be surprised. St. Bernard has 
given a description of it in a letter to Innocent II. **It is 
nothing either so remarkable or so novel, that the mind of 
man should be capable of deceiving and being deceived. 
Some monks are come to you with the spirit of falsehood 
and illusion. They talked against a bishop whom they de- 
test, but whose life has been exemplary. These people bite 
like dogs, and would make what is good pass for evil, while 
you, holy Father, are displeased with your son; but whj 
have you given his adversaries an occasion of triumph? Be- 
lieve not in every spirit, but prove them whether they are 
of God. I trust when you come to know the truth, what- 
ever has been founded on false information will be dismis- 
17 



290 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

sed; and I entreat the Spirit of truth to give you grace to 
separate the light from darkness, and to reject the evil that 
you may favour the good." Thus you see, Father, that the 
elevated station which the popes occupy, does not exempt 
them from surprise,* hut, in fact, it renders the mistakes in* 
to which they are hurried, more dangerous and important. 
This is what St. Bernard represents to pope Eugenius, de 
Consid. lib. 2. c. ult. **There is another fault so general, 
that I have never yet found an individual amongst the great 
who escaped it. It is, holy Father, a too great credulity 
from which so many disorders proceed. To this may he 
traced violent persecutions against the innocent, unjust pre- 
judices against those who are absent, and terrible passions in 
affairs of no consequence — pro nihilo. This, holy Father, 
is an universal evil, and if you are exempt from it, I must 
say you are the only one that possesses this advantage over 
your brethren." 

I fancy, my good Father, you are now beginning to be 
convinced that the popes are liable to surprise^ but to show 
this still better, I only beg to remind you of some examples 
which you have yourself related in your book of popes and em- 
perors, who have been completely surprised by some of the 
heretics I You state that Apollinarius surprised pope Da- 
masus as Celestius did Zozimus. You say also that a per- 
son named Athanasius deceived the emperor Heraclius, and 
occasioned his persecuting the Catholics; and that Sergius 
obtained from Honorius that decree which was burnt at the 
sixth council, through his heingy as you say, .the parasite of 
that pope. 

It is evident, then, by your own statement, that those 
who attend upon kings and popes, sometimes artfully en- 
gage them to persecute the true faith, while they imagine 
they are exterminating heretics. Hence the popes, who are 
exceedingly fearful of such surprises, have adopted a letter 
of Alexander III. as an ecclesiastical enactment, inserted 
in the canon law, to allow a suspension in the execution of 
their bulls and decrees, when it is supposed they have been 
deceived. *<If," observes this pope to the archbishop of 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 291 

Ravenna, **we should sometimes send to your fraternity de- 
crees which oppose your own views, do not be uneasy; for 
either you must execute them with obedient reverence, or 
send us the reason why you do not tliink you should, because 
we shall not be dissatisfied that you do not execute a decree 
which may have been drawn from us by artifice and sur- 
prise." Such is the conduct of the popes who are solicitous 
of clearing up the differences of Christians, and not of grati- 
fying the passions of those who would fill Christendom with 
confusion. They do not claim an authority like that of St. 
Peter, after Christ, but their conduct evinces a spirit of 
peace and truth. Hence they generally insert this clause 
in their letters, which is understood to be in all — '^si itaest 
— SI preces veritate nitantur — if the thing be as we under- 
stood it; if the facts alleged be true." It is apparent from 
this statement, that since tlie popes give no authority to 
their bulls, only in proportion as they are founded on estab- 
lished facts, the bulls alone cannot prove the truth of facts; 
on the contrary, according to the canonists themselves, it is 
the truth of the facts which gives weight and effect to the bulls. 

But how shall we ascertain the truth of the facts? By our 
eyes, my good Father; which are the lawful judges, as rea- 
son is of natural and intelligible tilings, and faith of those 
which are supernatural and revealed. For, since you 
compel me to it, I must tell you, that conformably to the 
sentiments of two of tlic greatest doctors of the church, St. 
Augustin and St. Thomas, these three principles of knowl- 
edge, the senses, reason, and faith, have each their distinct 
objects, and their certainty within their own sphere. And 
as God has seen fit to make use of the senses as the medium 
o^ {'Aith—Jides ex auditu — so far is faith from destroying the 
certainty of the senses, that it would be destructive to faith 
to call in question the fidelity of the senses. St. Thomas, 
therefore, expressly says, that God has appointed sensible 
accidents to subsist in the eucharist, that the senses, which 
judge only from these accidents, might not be deceived — 
ut sensiis d deceptione reddantur immunes.^* 

We may hence infer, that whatever proposition is present- 



292 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

ed for our examination, it is necessary, in the first plac*, 
to ascertain the nature of it, to know to which of these three 
principles we must have recourse. If the question refer to 
any thing supernatural, we must neither judge of it by the 
senses nor by reason, but by Scripture and the decisions 
of the church: if it be an unrevealed proposition, and within 
the sphere of our natural sense, that must be the judge; but 
if it relate to a point of fact, we must believe our senses, to 
whose cognisance it naturally belongs. 

This rule is so general, that, according to St. Augustin 
and St. Thomas, when Scripture itself presents a passage, 
of which the first literal meaning is contrary to that which 
the senses and reason know with certainty, we must not en- 
deavor to disavow them, to subject them to the authority of 
this apparent meaning of Scripture, but must interpret 
Scripture, by searching out another signification, which 
agrees with the truth obvious to our senses; because, the 
word of God being infallible in the facts themselves, and 
the report of the senses and reason acting within their ap- 
propriate spheres being also certain, these two truths must 
agree; and, as Scripture may be variously interpreted, and 
the testimony of the senses but in one way, we ought, in 
such cases, to receive that as the true interpretation of 
Scripture, which is conformable to the faithful evidence of 
the senses. *»Two things," remarks St. Thomas, p. 1. q. 
68. a. 1. **must be observed, according to St. Augustin; the 
one, that Scripture always has a true meaning, the other, 
that it may be received in more senses than one, when we 
find one which reason convinces us isMinquestionably false; 
it must not then be obstinately afiirmed, *this is the natural 
meaning,' but another coincident with sense and reason must 
be sought." 

This he explains by an example from the book of Genesis, 
where it is written, **God made two great lights; the great- 
er light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the 
night; he made the stars also;" by whicli the Scripture seems 
to state that the moon is greater than all the stars; but since 
it is certain, from incontestable demonstrations, that this is 



IMIOVINCIAL lETTF.l{<f. 293 

not the case, we ought not, says this Father, pertinaciously 
to adhere to the literal sense, but seek for another more 
conformable to fact, as by observing, *'that the word only 
indicates tlie greatness of themoon's light, with respect to 
us, and not the greatness of that body in itself." 

Were we to do otherwise, we should not render the Scrip- 
ture venerable, but expose it to the contempt of infidels; 
* 'because," as St. Augustin remarks, ''should it be said 
that we believe in things contained in Scripture, which they 
know to be false, they would ridicule our credulity in oth- 
er things more concealed from human discernment, such as 
the resurrection from the dead, and eternal life:" *'and 
thus" adds St. Thomas, "our religion would be rendered 
contemptible, and their conversion to it utterly prevented." 

This would, moreover, operate as an entire prevention 
to the change of heretics, and render the pope's authority 
despicable, if we refuse to consider them as Catholics who 
will not believe certain words to be in a book where they 
cannot find them, upon the assurance of a pope, taken by 
surprise, that they were there. For nothing but the ex- 
amination of a book can ascertain whether it contains cer- 
tain words or not. Matters of fact can only be proved by 
the senses. If what you uiaintaiirbe true, show it? if not, 
pray desist from soliciting any one to believe it, for this is 
perfectly .useless. All the powers of the world cannot, by 
their utmost authority, persuade a person of a point of fact, 
any more than they can alter it; for liothing can make that 
which is, not to be. 

It was all in vain, for example, that certain monks of 
Ratisbon obtained from Pope Leo IX. a solemn decree, by 
which it was declared, that the body of St. Denys, first 
bishop of Paris, and commonly held to be the areopagitc, 
had been carried away from France, and conveyed to the 
church of their monaste^'y. That decree does not prevent 
the body of the saint in question from having always been, 
and still remaining, in the celebrated abbey which bears 
his name; and you would find it difficult enough to procure 
this bull a reception, though the pope avers he had examin- 



294 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

ed the matter ^^witli all possible diligence, diligentissim^, 
and with the counsel of many bishops and prelates:" so 
that he strictly enjoins all Frenchmen, ''districte yrsecipi- 
entes, to acknowledge and confess that they no longer have| 
these sacred relics." Notwithstanding which, the French, 
who knew this was not the fact, from the evidence of their 
own eyes, (for, having opened the shrine, they found in it 
all the relics entire, as the historians of that time declare,) 
believed then, and always have continued to do so, the con- 
trary to what this holy pope enjoined them to believe; con- 
vinced that even saints and prophets are liable to surprise 
and deception. 

In vain did you obtain a decree from Rome against Gali- 
leo, which condemned his opinion respecting the motion of 
the earth. This will never prove that it stands still; and 
if it have been ascertained, from careful observations, 
that it turns, all mankind together cannot prevent its turn- 
ing, nor prevent their being carried round with it. Do not 
imagine that the letters of Pope Zachary for the excom- 
raunication of St. Virgil for asserting we had antipodes, 
have annihilated that new world, though he declared this 
opinion to be a dangerous error; or that the king of Spain 
has derived no considerable benefit from believing Chris- 
topher Columbus, who came from those regions, instead of 
the pope, who liad never been there; or that the church has 
not received great advantage, for tliis discovery has sent 
the knowledge of the Grospel to great multitudes of people 
perishing in unbelief. 

Hence, my good Father, you seethe nature of matters of 
fact, and by what principles wc ought to regulate our judg- 
ment; and from this statement it is easy to conclude, with 
regard to our subject, that if these five propositions do not 
belong to Jansenius, it is impossible they should be extract- 
ed from his book; and the only mpans of coming to a con- 
clusion, and convincing the world, is to examine his work 
in a regular conference, which you were requested to do 
long, long ago. Till this is done, you have no right to 
stigmatize your adversaries as obstinate; for they are cer- 



PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 295 

tainly blameless as to this point of fact, as they are free 
from error on points of faith — Catholics in reference to 
rightf reasonable with regard to facty and innocent in both 
cases. 

Who can help feeling surprised, Father, to see on the 
one side a justification so complete, and on the other accu- 
sation so violent? Who would suppose that the question 
between you related to a fact of no importance, which you 
wished to be believed without evidence? And who would 
dare to think so much clamour was excited in the church 
for nothing, absolutely nothing — pro nihilo, as St Bernard 
says? But this is a part of your grand policy, to make 
people imagine every thing is at stake, in an affair really 
about nothing; and to give it out to the great people who at- 
tend to your representations, that your disputes refer to 
Calvin's most pernicious errors, and the most important 
principles of faith, for the purpose of inducing them to ex- 
ert their zeal and authority against your adversaries, as if 
the safety of the Catholics depended upon it! Whereas, if 
they come to know that question relates merely to this in- 
significant point of fact, they would not proceed another 
step; but, on the contrary, regret extremely having made 
so many efforts to gratify your private passions, in an af- 
fair of no consequence to the church. 

Lastly, to take it in the worst point of view, if it should 
prove true that Jansenius held these propositions, what 
would it matter if some persons doubted it, provided they 
detest them, as tliey do publicly? Is it not sufficient they 
are universally and without exception condemned, even in 
the very sense in which you have explained that you were 
desirous of their condemnation? Would the censure be more 
complete if it were really admitted that Jansenius main- 
tained them? What is the use of exacting this acknowl- 
edgement, unless it be to decry a doctor and a bishop, who 
died in the communion of the church? I cannot see that, 
in this case, the good would be so considerable as to repay 
the trouble. What advantage would it be to the state, the 
pope, the bishops, the doctors, or the church at large? It 



296 PROVINCIAL LETTERS. 

does not in any way affect tliem; and it is. in fact, merely 
your Society, Father, that would receive any pleasure from 
defaming an author who has done you a trifling injury. — 
But every agent is set in motion, because you declare every 
thing is at stake; and this is the secret cause of all these 
mighty movements, which, so soon as the true state of the 
case was known, would instantly cease to operate. As, 
therefore, the peace of the church depends upon this expo- 
sition of the business, it was extremely important to at- 
tempt it, that, all your disguises being detected, the whole 
world might see, that your accusations are groundless, your 
adversaries without error, and the church without heresy. 
The object I had in view is thus apparent: and it seems 
to be so important to the general interests of religion, that 
I can scarcely comprehend how those whom you have so 
provoked to speak can remain silent. Though your inju- 
rious conduct should not affect them, its influence upon the 
church itself ought, I think, to induce them to complain: 
besides, I cannot think ecclesiastics ought to abandon their 
reputation to calumny, especially in matters of faith. They 
allow you, however, to say whatever you please; so that, 
independently of the occasion which you have happened to 
give me, perhaps there might have been no opposition to 
the scandals you were disseminating on every hand. I am, 
therefore, astonished at their patience, especially as it can- 
not be attributed to timidity or w^eakness; for I well know 
they neither want arguments for their vindication, nor zeal 
for the truth. Still they maintain such a religious silence, 
that I fear it is carried to an excess. For my part, Father, 
I doubt whether I can imitate them in this.particular. Leave 
the church in peace, and I will readily and heartily consent 
to let you alone: but while you are aiming to stir up 
trouble, depend upon it there will be found children of peace 
who will think themselves obliged to use the utmost exer- 
tion to preserve its tranquillity. 



THE EKD. 



' Mt '? 7 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process, 

•^ J Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 



Treatment Date: March 2006 

PreservationTechnoioQies 

A WORLD LEADER tN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Townshio, PA 160bf 
(724) 779-21 1 1I 



